cause death; on the contrary, he may mean to produce beneficial effects; but he has no right to hazard medicine of a dangerous tendency where medical assistance can be obtained; if he does, he does it at his peril*." Note. The medical men who were examined The following from Britton, c. 5, is cited by Sir W. Blackstone:-"If a physician or surgeon gives his patient a potion or plaister to cure him, which contrary to expectation kills him; this is neither murder nor manslaughter, but misadventure; and he shall not be punished criminally, however liable he might formerly have been to a civil action for neglect or ignorance. But it hath been holden, that if he be not a regular physician, or surgeon, who administers the medicine, or performs the operation, it is manslaughter at the least. Yet Sir Mathew Hale very properly questions the law of this determination." 4 Bl. Com. 197. In the Mirror, it is laid down as follows:-"Physicians and chirurgeons are skilful in their faculties, and probably do lawful cures, having good consciences, so as nothing faileth to the patient which to their art belongeth; and if their patients die, they are not thereby manslayers or mayhemers; but if they take upon them a cure, and have no knowledge or skill therein; or, if they have knowledge, if nevertheless they neglect the cure, or minister that which is cold for hot, or hot for cold, or take little care thereof, or neglect due diligence therein, and especially in burning or cutting off members, which they are forbidden to do, but at the peril of their patient; if their patients die or lose their members in such cases, they are manslayers or mayhemers." c. 4, s. 16. LANCASTER Sp. Assizes, 1824. LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1828. LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1830. differed in opinion as to the nature of white vitriol. The greater number were of opinion that it was not a poison, but that it might produce poisonous effects. One of them, however, asserted, that it was in itself a poison. All the counts in the indictment charged it to be a "noxious and deadly poison." Bayley, J., suggested that there should have been a count describing it as a "noxious ingredient." See Rosinski's case, ante, p. 11, tit. "Assault." pose Tessymond's case, ante, p. 169, tit. "Manslaughter."—Furnishing wrong medicine by mis take. Ferguson's case, ante, p. 181, tit. "Manslaughter."-Causing death by negligence and want of skill in child birth. And Senior's case, in notes. MISDESCRIPTION AND MISNOMER. See tit.Indictment-Pleading," ante, p. 212 -234. 238. "Indictment-Variance," ante, p. 235— MISDEMEANOR AND FELONY. See tit. "Felony and Misdemeanor." John Burrow's case, ante, p. 134, where it was laid down, that, on an indictment for felony, the jury cannot convict of a misdemeanor. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1823. LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1826. the dock. between See tit." Practice," post, where a distinction Standing in was taken between a charge of felony and a charge Distinction of misdemeanor, in regard to the accused standing felony and in the dock when called upon to plead. misdemeanor. MUTE. Thursby's Case. Prisoner was indicted for house-breaking. the indictment being read over to him he mute. Sir G. Lewin, on his behalf, proposed to that he was deaf and dumb, and that he be allowed to plead through an interpreter. should But, Alderson, J., thought it right that the cause of his standing mute should be found by a jury, and it was so done*. • By 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 28, s. 2, it is enacted, "That if any person, being arraigned upon or charged with any in N by his counsel is not sufficient. LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1828. NEGLIGENCE. See" Homicide.-Manslaughter." Knight's case, ante, p. 168. Sitting inside a cart instead of being at the horse's head. LANCASTER Sum. Assizes, 1828. LANCASTER Sp. Assizes, 1829. Tessymond's case, ante, p. 169. Furnishing wrong medicine. Nanny Simpson's case, ante, p. 172. Administering a noxious medicine, not being a regular physician. dictment or information for treason, felony, piracy, or misdemeanor, shall stand mute of malice, or will not answer directly to the indictment or information, in every such case it shall be lawful for the Court, if it shall so think fit, to order the proper officer to enter a plea of Not guilty' on behalf of such person; and the plea so entered shall have the same force and effect as if such person had actually pleaded the same." If we may judge from the following case, the above most rational provision might have been introduced with at least equal advantage two hundred years ago. George Thoreby, being indicted for robbery, refused to plead, and his two thumbs were tied together with whipcord that the pain of that might compel him to plead, and he was sent away so tied, and a minister persuaded to go to him to persuade him, and an hour after he was brought again and pleaded; and this was said to be the common practice at Newgate. Kelynge, 27. 267 Rigmaidon's case, ante, p. 180. Slinging a cask LANCASTER in a dangerous manner. Sum. Assizes, 1833. LANCASTER Ferguson's case, ante, p. 181. Neglecting a wo- Sum. Assizes, man in labor. 1830. NIGHT WALKERS. See Watson v. Carr, ante, p. 52, tit. "Con- NEWCASTLE stable," as to who are to be deemed NIGHT-WALKERs. Sum. As sizes, 1823. NOTICE. Royston's Case. YORK Sum. Assizes, 1832. uttering, Monday to a Prisoner was indicted for uttering a forged Roch- On a trial for dale bank-note. It was known that he had another notice on note of the same description in his possession, and prisoner in the prosecutor gave him notice to produce it at the duce a banktrial. The notice was given on Monday-the trial nesday, is not was on the Wednesday following. Bolland, B., held that the notice was not suffi cient. Dundas was for the prosecution. gaol to pro note on Wed sufficient. |