Volume 1

Taylor's principles and practice of medical jurisprudence / [Alfred Swaine Taylor].

  • Alfred Swaine Taylor
Date:
1920
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Taylor's principles and practice of medical jurisprudence / [Alfred Swaine Taylor]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    79/962 page 61
    C. C. R. The learned judge required that the whole of the evidence should be before him previous to deciding whether the declaration could be received.” [Cases cited in note to this case :—R. v. Reason and Tranter, 1 Strange Rep. 449 ; R, v. John, 1 E. Pleas of Crown, 357 ; R. v. Tinkler, 1 E. P. C. 354 ; R. v. Woodcock, 1 L. C. C. 500 ; R. v. Mead, 2 B. & C. 605.] In the following case taken from the Lancet for January 25th, 1896, there is a somewhat new principle admitted which it is obviously out of the province of a medical jurist to discuss :— “ At the Wiltshire Assizes, held last week, Emily Lazenby, Mary Stretch, and Edwin Scriven were charged with the wilful murder of Martha Scriven at Swindon. There was a second charge against Lazenby of feloniously using a certain instrument, and Stretch and Scriven w,ere charged with aiding and procur¬ ing Lazenby to commit the felony. The magistrate’s clerk gave evidence as to the taking of the dying depositions of the woman. She stated that she made the declaration in the fear of death and of immediate death. “ Some considerable controversy took place between counsel as to the admissibility of this declaration, on the ground put forward by the defence that the woman did not believe that she was immediately dying. The medical attendant deposed to telling the woman repeatedly that she was dying. There was one clause in the declaration, ‘ I might get better ; I mean to have a good try.’ It was contended that this proved that the woman was not in hopeless expectation of immediate death, and Mr. Commissioner Bosanquet, Q.C., decided to disallow the document as a dying declaration as against all three prisoners, but admitted it as evidence against the two women, because they ivere 'present at the time it was read over to her, and he declined to grant a case for the higher courts on this point. A verdict of ‘ Manslaughter ’ was returned, and the woman Lazenby was sentenced to seven years’ peifal servitude and the other two prisoners to five years’ penal servitude each.” PRESENCE IN COURT In England hiedical and scientific witnesses, except under special circumstances, are allowed to be present in court and hear the whole of the evidence in the case. This is in some instances absolutely necessary if the court requires medical opinions, for unless the wit¬ nesses are fully acquainted with the facts they can give no opinions, and they can only become fuhy acquainted with the facts by being allowed to be present and hearing the evidence in court. If excluded, the judge or counsel will be compelled to read to the witness notes of the evidence before an opinion can be given, and it may then appear that some small point which counsel did not think of importance is omitted; this if known to the witness might, however, materially affect his opinion. A failure of justice is likely to occur when medical witnesses are excluded, and it is generally where there is no defence or a false defence that the right of excluding them is exercised. The rule in Scotland is different; medical witnesses are there rigorously excluded from court during the delivery of other expert evidence. It is, of course, easy to imagine circumstances under which it might be advisable that a medical witness to facts should not be in court
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3