Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Medical jurisprudence / by Alfred Swaine Taylor. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.
17/968 (page 3)
![operation, the accused is tried on a charge of murder or man- slaughter, and the duty of a medical witness consists in showing that the substance taken was the certain cause of death. If, however, death be not a consequence, then the accused may be tried for the attempt to murder by poison (1 Vict. c. 85, sec. 2). The words of this statute are general, and embrace all kinds of substances, whether they are popularly or professionally regarded as poisons or not. Thus it is laid down that — Whoever shall administer, or cause to be taken by any person, any poison, or other destructive thing, with intent to commit murder, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall suffer death. Although the administering be followed not b}' death hut only by bodily injury dangerous to Jife, it is still a capital felony, provided the inlcnt has been to commit murder. The aitoiipt to administer to any person, any poison or other de- stnictive thing, with the like intent, &c., although no bodily injury be effected, is felony, punishable by tran.sportation for life, for fifteen years, or imprisonment for any term not exceeding three years. From the words of the statute it appears that the law requires, in order to constitute the crime of poisoning, that the substance should be udminisiered to, or be taken by, an in- dividual. Several deaths have been caused of late years by the external application of arsenic and corrosive sublimate to ul- cerated and diseased surfaces. Supposing that a poison is thus applied intentionally, and great bodily injury is done to an individual, it might be a question whether the crime could be punished under these sections of the statute. Lord Campbell's Act (14 and 1.5 Vict. c. 19) appears to provide for this description of offence, although the application or administration is herein limited to chloroiorm, laudanum, or other stupefying drugs. The external application of arsenic in a way to produce personal injury would no doubt be considered an act of administration. Poison is not always administered with intent to murder. On many occasions it has been mixed with food, and thus adminis- tered with a view to injure or annoy a person. Cantharidcs have been thus frequently given, and in one instance (Nov. 185;)) eight members of a family suffered from severe symptoms of poisoning by reason of the wanton administralion of this drug. In April 18G0, several members of a family suffered from .severe sickness, as a result of tobacco having been put into water contained in a teakettle; and tartar emetic has been in some cases dissolved in beer or other li(puds as a umre frolic, with- out any proved or probable intention on the ])art of the offender to (Icstroy life. The ca.se of A/UMul/cn (l,ivcrpool Autumn Assizes, 185(;), revealed an extensive system of poisoning in the northern counties, in wiiich tartar emetic was the substance employed. This drug, mixed with cream of tartar, was openly a 2](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21935221_0017.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
