A handy-book of forensic medicine and toxicology / by W. Bathurst Woodman and Charles Meymott Tidy.

Date:
1877
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A handy-book of forensic medicine and toxicology / by W. Bathurst Woodman and Charles Meymott Tidy. 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.

    1212/1268 (page 1176)
    reign of Charles II., so called from its being occasioned by an assault on Sir John Coventry in the street, and slitting his nose, in revenge, as was supposed, for some obnoxious words spoken by him in the House of Commons. This ordains that if anyone “ of malice aforethought, and In- lying in wait, unlawfully cut out or disable the tongue, put out an eye, si it the nose, cut oil a nose or lip, or cut off or disable any limb or mend/er of aiiy other person, with an intent to maim or disfigure him, he shall be deemed a felon without benefit of clergy.”* By a law passed in the -13 George III. [Lord Lllenborough's Act (7)] all wilful and malicious maiming, stabbing or cutting, with intent to murder, rob, maim, disfigure, or disable, or to do some “ grievous bodily harm ’’ is declared felony. By a law passed in the 1) George IV., chap, xxxi., it is enacted “ that if any person shall maliciously shoot at another, or cut, stab, or wound, with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable, or to do some other ‘ grievous bodily harm,’ it shall be deemed felony in all cases where, if death had ensued, it would have amounted to murder.” [Lord Lansdowne’s Act.] This Act is said to have originated in an attempt of one Howard to murder with a blunt weapon ! In 1721 Mr. Coke, a barrister, and Air. Woodburne, were convicted and hanged, the one for hiring and abetting, the other for actually slitting the nose of Mr. Crispe, Coke’s brother-in-law. Coke, with great effrontery, said that his aim was to murder, and when found guilty, asked if the nose could be said to be slit, within the meaning of the Act, when the edge of it was not cut through1 To this the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Peter King, replied :—“ It is true, the edge of the nose was not slit, but the cut was athwart the nose, which cut separated the flesh of the nose, and cut it quite through the> nostril. This I take [he added] to be a slitting of the nose, and the surgeon swore the nose was slit.” [Hargrave, vol. v., p. 211.] Beck gives numerous decisions on technical points con- nected with these Acts. See loc. cit„ p. 651. One William Lee was tried at the Old Bailey, in 1763, for attempting to cut his wife’s throat with a razor while asleep. The wound was three inches long, but did not prove mortal. This was decided not to be an offence within the Coventry Act! It would now, of course, be held to be “ grievous bodily harm.” [George III., 43, or IV., 9.] Dr. Taylor states that the late Chief Baron Pollock stated on one occa- sion that “ grievous bodily harm ” woiddreasonably apply to such an injury as woidd render medical treatment necessary.” Again, in Leg. v. Haynes, Central Criminal Court, Sept., 1847, the judge held that “ the intent of the prisoner was to be considered by the jury. It was not because serious injury was the result of a prisoner’s act that they were therefore to infer his intention was to do that injury.” The prisoner had kicked a girl in the lower part of the abdomen. The surgeon described the injury as most serious ; at one time ho considered the life of the prosecutrix was in danger, and she would suffer from it all her life in all probability. Yet, in consequence of the judge’s ruling, the prisoner was only found guilty of a common assault! On the other hand, in Leg. v. Dari-- [Chelmsford Autumn Assizes, 1871], a half-drunken prisoner in a * A privilege of clergymen, exempting them from the jurisdiction of lay tribunals. As all who could read were called clerks, many laymen benefited by this; but as a layman was not, allowed to receive this benefit twice, he was on claiming it branded with allot iron on the left thumb. In England this only applied to felony. Benefit of clergy was abolished by 7 & 8 Georgii IV. c. xxviii. s. 6.