accidents, explosions, railway disasters, collision between vessels,
etc.
3. Birth of infants; was infant born dead or alive; if dead, was death
the result of natural causes or of internal violence; age of infant
at the time of birth or death. Also causes of alleged sterility or
pregnancy; time pregnancy has existed; also cases of alleged impotency.
4. Rape, abortion, bastardy, pederasty, onanism, masochism, and many
other matters relating to the sexual organs.
5. Malpractice cases, involving the degree of care and skill usual,
and that used in the case under investigation, and involving delicate
questions as to the propriety of the treatment adopted, etc.
[186] See also 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 36; Rex _v._ Romiski, 1 Moody,
19; Reg. _v._ Ellis, 2 Car. & K., 470.
[187] In such cases as these the patient would have a right of action
in the civil courts for damages against the physician or surgeon,
because he had taken wilful and wicked advantage of his professional
relation to her, to do her a grievous wrong.
[188] The Pennsylvania courts at an early period refused to follow this
common-law doctrine, and held that the moment the womb is instinct with
life in embryo and the process of gestation has begun the crime may be
perpetrated. Mills _v._ Com., 13 Pa. St., 631.
[189] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 217, citing Rex _v._ Williamson, 3 Car.
& P., 635.
[190] The same learned and philosophical text-writer (2 Bishop Crim.
Law, sec. 664) compares the English and American cases and declares
that the difference between them is more apparent than real.
[191] See Rice _v._ The State, 8 Mo., 561; Fairlee _v._ People, 11
Ill., 1; Holmes _v._ State, 23 Ala., 17; Rex _v._ Spilling, 2 M. &
Rob., 107; Ferguson’s Case, 1 Lew., 181; Thomas _v._ Winchester, 2
Selden, N. Y. Court of App., 397; Com. _v._ Pierce, 138 Mass., 165, and
cases cited; State _v._ Hahn, 38 Ark., 605; Wharton’s Crim. Law, sec.
1015; Elwell on Malpractice, etc., 238, 239.
[192] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 558, citing Groenvelt’s case, 1 Lord
Raymond, 213; Rex _v._ Long, 4 C. & P., 398.
[193] See also Kelsey _v._ Hay, 84 Ind., 189; Small _v._ Howard, 128
Mass., 131; Gates _v._ Fleisher, 67 Wis., 286; Smothers _v._ Hanks, 34
Iowa, 286; Almond _v._ Nugent, 34 Iowa, 300; Haire _v._ Reese, 7 Phila.
(Pa.), 138; Nelson _v._ Harrington, 72 Wis., 591.
[194] Ruddock _v._ Low, 4 F. & F., 519; Musser _v._ Chase, 29 Ohio St.,
577.
[195] See particularly Gieselman _v._ Scott, 25 Ohio St., 86; Lanphier
_v._ Phipos, 8 C. & P., 475; Pym _v._ Roper, 2 F. & F., 783; Carpenter
_v._ Blake, 60 Barb., 485, 50 N. Y., 696, 10 Hun, 358, 75 N. Y., 12;
Leighton _v._ Sargent, 7 N. H., 460.
[196] Synonymous terms with “reasonable care” are “fair knowledge and
skill,” Jones _v._ Angell, 95 Ind., 376; “ordinary care and skill,”
Heath _v._ Glisan, 3 Oregon, 64.
[197] See Corsi _v._ Maretzek, 4 E. D. Smith, 1, quoted at p. 362 of
this volume.
[198] Small _v._ Howard, 128 Mass., 131, and cases cited.
[199] Clairvoyancy of course is not recognized in the courts as
medical or surgical practice. And any one professing to treat patients
as a clairvoyant must be held to the standard of regular practising
physicians in the neighborhood where the clairvoyant operates. Nelson
_v._ Harrington, 72 Wis., 591; Bibber _v._ Simpson, 59 Me., 181; Musser
_v._ Chase, 29 Ohio St., 577.
[200] McCandless _v._ McWha, 22 Pa. St., 261; Carpenter _v._ Blake,
_supra_; Leighton _v._ Sargent, _supra_.
[201] Kelley _v._ Hay, 84 Ind., 189; Stone _v._ Evans, 32 Minn., 243;
Teft _v._ Wilcox, 6 Kans., 646; Brooke _v._ Clark, 57 Tex., 105;
Graunis _v._ Branden, 5 Day (Conn.), 260, s. c., 5 Am. Dec., 143;
Wenger _v._ Calder, 78 Ill., 275; Carpenter _v._ Blake, _supra_.
[202] Hyrne _v._ Irwin, 23 S. Car., 226, s.c., 55 Am. Rep., 15;
Whittaker _v._ Collins, 34 Minn., 209.
[203] Boor _v._ Lowrey, 103 Ind., 468.
[204] Hitchcock _v._ Burgett, 38 Mich., 501.
[205] See U. P. R. R. Co. _v._ Botsford, 141 U. S., 250; McQuiggan _v._
D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 129 N. Y., 50; Roberts _v._ O. & L. C. R. Co.,
29 Hun, 154, and cases cited.
[206] Olmstead _v._ Gere, 100 Pa. St., 127; Carpenter _v._ Blake,
_supra_.
[207] Greenleaf Ev., s. 236; Taylor Ev., s. 908; Bouvier’s Law
Dictionary, p. 363; Am. and Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 19, p. 122; Code
Civ. Pro. Cal., s. 1,881; Mills’ Ann. Stats. of Col., 1891, s. 4,824;
Rev. Stats. Idaho, 1887, s. 5,958; Gen. Stats. Minn., 1891, s. 5,094;
Comp. Stats. Mont., 1887, s. 650; Gen. Laws Ore., 1892, s. 712; Comp.
Laws Utah, 1888, s. 3,877.
[208] Taylor Ev., s. 911; Stephen, Dig. of Ev., art. 115; Greenleaf
Ev., s. 237.
[209] The successive efforts made to extend protection by judicial
ruling to communications between physician and patient will appear from
a consideration of the cases that are usually cited as authority for
the English rule: Annesley _v._ Earl of Anglesea (1743), 18 How. St.
Tr., 1,139; Duchess of Kingston’s case (1776), 20 How. St. Tr., 355
(cf. p. 572, p. 585, p. 586, p. 613); Wilson _v._ Rastall (1791)., 4
Term R. (Durnford & East), 753; Rex _v._ Gibbons (1823), 1 C. & P., 97;
Broad _v._ Pitt (1828), 3 C. & P., 518; Greenough _v._ Gaskell (1832),
1 My. & K., 98. See also Wheeler _v._ Le Marchant, 50 L. J. Ch., 795
(1880).
1 Phillips Ev., p. 136; Starkie Ev., p. 40; Wharton Ev., s. 606;
Greenleaf Ev., secs. 248, 237, 239; Taylor Ev., s. 916; Stephen, Dig.
of Ev., art. 115; Rogers’ Expert Testimony, s. 45; Reynolds’ Theory of
Evidence, s. 86.
It is to be noted that none of the cases which are cited as authority
for the common-law rule as usually stated are really precedents to that
extent. The cases of the Duchess of Kingston (_supra_); Lord William
Russel (9 How. St. Tr., 602); Dr. Ratcliff (9 How. St. Tr., 582);
Earl Ferrers (19 How. St. Tr., 886), and Rex _v._ Gibbons (_supra_),
were all criminal prosecutions; and in Annesley _v._ Anglesea, Wilson
_v._ Rastall, Broad _v._ Pitt, and Greenough _v._ Gaskell (_supra_),
which were civil causes, the question of the privilege of a medical
man was not really in dispute. It is well settled that communications
between attorney and client are privileged, and yet Judge Pitt Taylor
expresses some doubt whether the protection cannot be removed without
the client’s consent in cases where the interests of _criminal justice_
require the production of the evidence (Taylor Ev., s. 929). This
intimation of a distinction between criminal and civil actions, even
in the case of attorneys, suggests the possibility of a difference
between those two classes of actions in the case of medical men. The
cases cited establish authoritatively that in criminal prosecutions,
at common law, confidential communications between medical man and
patient are not privileged; but in civil causes, the opinions of the
eminent judges seem to be _obiter dicta_. It is, however, established
by other decisions that mere confidential relations do not prevent the
disclosure of communications. (For the case of _bankers_, see Loyd _v._
Freshfield, 2 C. & P., 325; _managers_, Anderson _v._ British Bank of
Columbia. 45 L. J. Ch., 449; _clerks_, Lee _v._ Burrell, 3 Camp., 337;
Webb _v._ Smith, 1 C. & P., 337; _stewards_, Vaillant _v._ Dodemead, 2
Atk., 524; Earl of Falmouth _v._ Moss, 11 Price, 455; _Pursuivant of
Herald’s College_, Slade _v._ Tucker, 49 L. J. Ch., 644.)
The opinions of so many eminent men, though strictly speaking _obiter
dicta_, together with the uniform statements of text-writers based upon
them, leave no room for reasonable doubt that independent of statute,
in civil as well as criminal causes, communications between medical
adviser and patient are not entitled to protection from disclosure in
evidence.
[210] See Duchess of Kingston’s case (_supra_, p. 91, note 3) (cf.
_ib._, pp. 572, 585, 586, 613).
[211] Greenleaf Ev., secs. 249, 252, 252a.
[212] Greenleaf Ev. s. 249.
[213] See Barnes _v._ Harris, 7 Cush., 576; Hatton _v._ Robinson, 4
Pick, 422. See also historical review of the attorney’s privilege and
the reasons for it, by Judge Seldon, at Special Term, in Rochester City
Bank _v._ Suydam, 5 How. Pr. (N.Y.), 254.
[214] Wilson _v._ Rastall, 4 Term R., 753.
[215] Best, Prin. of Ev., s. 582.
[216] The revisers of the New York Statutes in 1828 in their report
(5 N. Y. Stats. at Large, edited by John W. Edmonds, 2d ed., p. 726)
stated as their reason for suggesting a statutory privilege for
communications between physician and patient, that “in 4 Term Rep.,
580, Buller, J. (to whom no one will attribute a disposition to relax
the rules of evidence), said it was ‘much to be lamented’ that the
information specified in this section (2 R. S., p. 406, s. 73) was not
privileged. Mr. Phillips expressed the same sentiments in his treatise
on Evidence, p. 104. The ground on which communications to _counsel_
are privileged is the supposed necessity of a full knowledge of the
facts, to advise correctly, and to prepare for the proper defence or
prosecution of a suit. But surely the necessity of consulting a medical
adviser, when life itself may be in jeopardy, is still stronger. And
unless such consultations are privileged, men will be incidentally
punished by being obliged to suffer the consequences of injuries
without relief from the medical art, and without conviction of any
offence. Besides, in such cases, during the struggle between legal duty
on the one hand and professional honor on the other, the latter, aided
by a strong sense of the injustice and inhumanity of the rule, will
in most cases furnish a temptation to the perversion or concealment
of truth, too strong for human resistance. In every view that may be
taken of the policy, justice or humanity of the rule as it exists, its
relaxation seems highly expedient.”
These or similar reasons have prevailed in many States and Territories
to bring about a statutory restriction on disclosures.
[217] The following cases show or tend to show that the English rule
is in operation in Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, Texas, and West Virginia: Wilson _v._ Town of Granby, 47 Conn.,
59; Fayette _v._ Chesterville, 77 Me., 28; Weems _v._ Weems, 19 Md.,
334; Morrissey _v._ Ingham, 111 Mass., 63; Barber _v._ Merriam, 11
Allen, 322; Castner _v._ Sliker, 4 Vr., 95; Steagald _v._ State, 3 S.
W. Rep., 771; Jarrett _v._ Jarrett, 11 W. Va., 584. For the common-law
rule in the States where statutes are now in force, see Campau _v._
North, 39 Mich., 606; Territory _v._ Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Pierson _v._
People, 79 N. Y., 424; Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564;
Buffalo Loan Tr. & S. D. Co. _v._ Knights Templar, etc., 126 N. Y., 450.
[218] Dig. Stats. Ark., 1884, s. 2,862; Code Civ. Pro. Cal., s. 1,881
as amended Law 1893, c. 217; Mills’ Ann. Stats. Col., 1891, secs.
4,824, 4,825; R. S. Ida., 1887, s. 5,958; Myers’ Ann. R. S. Ind., 1888,
s. 497; Act of May 2d, 1890, U. S. Stats. at Large, c. 182, making the
laws of evidence of Arkansas applicable to Indian Territory; McClain’s
Ann. Code Iowa, 1888, s. 4,893; Code Civ. Pro. Kan., s. 323; Gen.
Stats. Kan., 1889, s. 4,418; Howell’s Ann. Stats. Mich., 1882, s.
7,516; Kelley’s Gen. Stats. Minn., 1891, s. 5,094; R. S. Mo., 1889,
s. 8,925; Comp. Stats. Mont., 1887, s. 650; Code of Civ. Pro. Neb.,
secs. 333, 334; Bailey & Hammond’s Gen. Stats. Nev., 1885, s. 3,406;
Code Civ. Pro. N. Y., secs. 834, 836, as amended by Laws 1893, c. 295;
Laws of N. C., Act of 1885, c. 159; Code Civ. Pro. Dak., 1883, s.
499; Smith & Benedict’s R. S. Ohio, 1890, s. 5,241; Stats. of Okl.,
1893, s. 4,213; Hill’s Gen. Laws Ore., 1892, secs. 712, 713; Code Civ.
Pro. Dak., 1883, s. 499; Code Civ. Pro. Utah, s. 1,156; Comp. Laws of
Utah, s. 3,877; 2 Hill’s Ann. Stats. Wash., 1891, s. 1,649: Sanborn
& Berryman’s Ann. Stats. Wis., 1889, s. 4,075; R. S. Wyo., 1887. s.
2,589. For the chronological order and the date of the passage of the
earlier of these laws, see note to Gartside _v._ Connecticut Mutual L.
I. Co., 76 Mo., 446.
[219] Rev. Stats. U. S., s. 721.
[220] Conn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. _v._ Union Trust Co., 112 U. S., 250.
See also Dreier _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 24 Fed. Rep., 670; Adrereno
_v._ Mutual Res. Fund L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870.
[221] Logan _v._ United States, 144 U. S., 263; United States _v._
Reid, 12 How., 361.
[222] See references to the several statutes in note 2 on p. 94.
[223] See Freel _v._ Market St. Cable Ry. Co., 31 Pac. Rep., 730 (Supr.
Ct. Cal.).
[224] This seems to be the proper construction of the Kansas and
Oklahoma statutes, though what seem to be typographical errors in the
published laws render it doubtful.
[225] For laws regulating practice in the several States and
Territories, see _infra_, p. 137 _et seq._
[226] Laws N. Y., Act 1893, c. 295.
[227] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as amended Act 1893, c. 295. A
similar exception was introduced by Act 1891, c. 381, and modified by
Act 1892, c. 514.
[228] _Supra_, p. 94, note 1.
[229] Bishop, Written Laws, secs. 119, 155; Potter’s Dwarris, Statutes,
p. 185; 1 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, “Construction,” p. 386.
[230] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203. For the
construction of particular words and phrases, see _infra_, p. 115 _et
seq._
[231] For waiver of the privilege, see _infra_, p. 106.
[232] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.
[233] Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363.
[234] Kling _v._ City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231.
[235] Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446; said to be
overruled by Groll _v._ Tower, 85 Mo., 249, in Squires _v._ City of
Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; but followed in Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo.,
160.
[236] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 3,345. Disclosures by physicians are
restricted by secs. 834, 836 of said Code.
[237] Code Civ. Pro., secs. 834, 836, as new existing are re-enactments
with modifications of 2 R. S., p. 406, s. 73.
[238] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I.
Co., 67 N. Y., 185. Cf. Kendall _v._ Grey, 2 Hilt., 300; Pearsall _v._
Elmer, 5 Redf., 181. A disposition to construe the statute strictly was
disclosed in the opinion of Earl, J., in Edington. _v._ Ætna L. I. Co.,
77 N. Y., 564, but his personal views were disapproved in subsequent
cases; see Grattan _v._ Metro. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Renihan _v._
Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Buffalo Loan, etc., Co. _v._ Knights Templar,
etc., 126 N. Y., 450. See also Jones _v._ Brooklyn, etc., Ry. Co., 3 N.
Y. Supp., 253; in matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591; Marx _v._ Manhattan
Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575; Treanor _v._ Manhattan Ry. Co., 28 Abb. N. C., 47.
[239] See Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684.
[240] N. Y. Code of Pro., s. 390; N. Y. Code of Civ. Pro., s. 870.
[241] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. c., 67 N. Y., 185.
Under sec. 873, Code Civ. Pro., as amended by Law 1893, c. 721, the
plaintiff in an action for personal injuries may be compelled to submit
to a physician’s inspection. Cf. Page _v._ Page, 51 Mich., 88.
[242] _Supra_, p. 96.
[243] Guptill _v._ Verback, 58 Iowa, 98. In this case, however, it was
determined that it did not appear that a crime was intended.
[244] 2 R. S., 406, s. 73.
[245] Act 1876, c. 448, Code Civ. Pro., secs. 834, 836.
[246] Act 1877, c. 417, s. 1.
[247] 3 R. S., 1029, s. 19. Superseded by Code Crim. Pro., s. 392, as
amended by Act 1892, c. 279, s. 7. People _v._ Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126.
People _v._ Brower, 53 Hun, 217.
[248] Pierson _v._ People, 79 N. Y., 424; People _v._ Harris, 136 N.
Y., 423.
[249] Pierson _v._ People, 18 Hun, 239.
[250] People _v._ Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126 (1886).
[251] People _v._ Brower, 53 Hun, 217 (1889). See also People _v._
Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.
[252] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 4 Paige, 460; s. p., 14 Wend., 636; Hanford
_v._ Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; Hunn _v._ Hunn, 1 T. & C., 499.
In Indiana, information as to abortion and criminal intimacy is
protected in an action for criminal conversation. Harris _v._ Rupel,
14 Ind., 209. In Hewitt _v._ Prime, 21 Wend., 77 N. Y. (1839), in an
action for seduction the testimony of a physician that he was asked
for medicine to produce an abortion was admitted. It was stated that
such testimony is not privileged, but there were other reasons for the
judgment, and the case seems to be at variance with later decisions on
that principle.
See also Briggs _v._ Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.
[253] Allen _v._ Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf., 221 (1850).
[254] Staunton _v._ Parker, 19 Hun, 55 (1879).
[255] Citing the fact that no objection was raised in the noted case of
Delafield _v._ Parish, 25 N. Y., 1.
[256] Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573 (1886), followed in Loder
_v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239 (1888). _In re_ Hannah, 11 N. Y. St.
Rep., 807 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887). In matter of Connor (Sup. Ct., G.
T.), 27 N. Y. St. Rep., 905 (1889); Mason _v._ Williams (Sup. Ct., G.
T., 1889), 6 N. Y. Supp., 479; Van Orman _v._ Van Orman (Sup. Ct., G.
T., 1890), 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824. See also In matter of Halsey (N. Y.
Surr.), 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (1890). Allen _v._ Pub. Adm., 1 Bradf.,
221, had been overruled in part by Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N.
Y., 185 (1876), but not on this point.
[257] _Supra_, p. 98.
[258] Heuston _v._ Simpson, 115 Ind., 62.
[259] Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206. In this case the testimony
was admitted on the ground that the representative could waive the
privilege. See Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.
[260] _In re_ Benson (Monroe County Court), 16 N. Y. Supp., 111
(1891). Some States have statutory provisions for the qualification of
physicians as examiners in lunacy, _e.g._, Laws of Col., 1893, c. 119,
s. 5; Laws of N. Y., 1874, c. 446, t. 1, art. 1, s. 1. The bearing of
these provisions upon the statutory privilege has not been made clear.
[261] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. State Rep., 263 (1887).
[262] In matter of Hoyt, 20 Abb. N. C. (Sup. Ct., G. T., 1887).
[263] 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1880).
[264] Dilleber _v._ Home L. I. Co., 13 N. Y. W. D., 505 (1881).
[265] The following cases in which the rule has been enforced have
arisen out of contracts of life insurance: Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._
Beck, 77 Ind., 203; Excelsior Mut. Aid Assn. _v._ Riddle, 91 Ind.,
84; Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Ætna L. I. Co. _v._
Denning, 123 Ind., 390; Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App.,
363; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; Grattan _v._ Metrop.
L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; s. p., 92 N. Y., 274; Conn. Mut. L. I. Co.
_v._ Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250.
[266] See Renihan _v._ Dennin. 103 N. Y., 573, dictum to same effect.
As to whether a physician may contradict his patient to prevent fraud,
see _infra_, p. 111 _et seq._
[267] _Supra_, p. 97.
[268] _Infra_, p. 119.
[269] “Physician: A person who has received the degree of doctor of
medicine from an incorporated institution; one lawfully engaged in the
practice of medicine.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 412.
“Surgeon: One who applies the principles of the healing art to external
diseases or injuries, or to internal injuries or malformations,
requiring manual or instrumental intervention. One who practises
surgery.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 698, _q. v._
[270] Edington _v._ Mutual L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.
[271] People _v._ Stout, 3. Park Cr. Rep., 670 (1858). In this case the
witness was undoubtedly a duly qualified physician under the State law.
[272] Wiel _v._ Cowles, 45 Hun, 307 (1887) (Supreme Ct., Gen. T.).
Sec. 356, N. Y. Penal Code, which was in operation at that time, was
repealed by Act 1887, c. 647, s. 9, but the prohibition of unauthorized
practice is now to be found in Act 1893, c. 661, s. 140.
[273] Kendall _v._ Gray, 2 Hilt., 300 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1859).
[274] Brown _v._ Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 66 Mo., 588.
[275] Carrington _v._ St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208.
[276] _Infra_, p. 128.
[277] Record _v._ Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (N. Y. Supr.
Ct., Gen. T.).
[278] _Supra_, p. 96.
[279] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler. 100 Ind., 92; Morris _v._ Morris,
119 Ind., 341.
[280] Grand Rapids & Ind. R. R. Co. _v._ Martin, 41 Mich., 667; Fraser
_v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206.
[281] Carrington _v._ St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208; Squires _v._ City of
Chillicothe, 89 Mo., 226; Blair _v._ C. & A. R. R. Co., 89 Mo., 334; s.
p., 89 Mo., 383; Adrereno _v._ Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep.,
870; Davenport _v._ City of Hannibal, 18 S. W. Rep., 1122.
[282] The most of the cases in which the rule has been enforced are
those in which the physician has actually testified without raising
the objection himself, and in which, therefore, the rule could not be
enforced if the physician’s waiver were valid, but the following cases
particularly are in point: Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209; Barton _v._
Allbright, 29 Ind., 488; Storrs _v._ Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; Lunz _v._
Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend.,
636; Hanford _v._ Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468; People _v._ Stout, 3 Park
Cr. Rep., 670.
[283] Mulhado _v._ Brooklyn City R. R. Co., 30 N. Y., 370; Heller _v._
Sharon Springs, 28 Hun, 344; Winner _v._ Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511.
[284] See Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Territory _v._
Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock _v._
People, 15 Hun, 347.
[285] Barton _v._ Allbright, 29 Ind., 488; Campau _v._ North, 39 Mich.,
606; Territory _v._ Corbett, 3 Mont., 50; Blair _v._ Chic. & Alton R.
R. Co., 89 Mo., 334; Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend. (N. Y.), 636.
[286] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836 (Act 1876, c. 448), as amended Act
1877, c. 416, s. 185. Previous to the Code of Civil Procedure the
provision for waiver was not in the statute, 2 R. S., 406, s. 73.
The amendment of 1891 allowed an express waiver of information, except
confidential communications and such facts as would tend to disgrace
the memory of the patient, by his personal representatives, or if the
validity of the last will and testament of the patient is in question,
by the executor or executors named in said will. Law 1891, c. 381.
The amendment of 1892 added the surviving husband, widow, heir at law,
any of the next of kin or any other party in interest, in case the
validity of the last will and testament of the patient is in question.
Law 1892, c. 514. The present law contains the same provisions. Act
1893, c. 295.
[287] Westover _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56; Loder _v._ Whelpley,
111 N. Y., 239; Alberti _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N. Y.,
77. Staunton _v._ Parker, 19 Hun, 55, is thus overruled.
[288] See In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 548 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G.
T.,1887).
See Adrereno _v._ Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co. (U. S. C. C. Mich.), 34 Fed.
Rep., 870.
[289] Alberti _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 118 N. Y., 77.
[290] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203.
[291] Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206.
[292] Groll _v._ Tower, 85 Mo., 249.
[293] Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160, distinguishes the New York
statute from the Missouri statute; but seems to misinterpret Heuston
_v._ Simpson, 115 Ind., 62, which does not hold that representatives
cannot waive, but that they can invoke protection.
[294] State _v._ Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000.
[295] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun,
347; Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887);
cf. _In re_ Hannah, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.
[296] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92; Allen _v._ Pub.
Adm., 1 Bradf., 221; Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185; see
Westover _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 99 N. Y., 56. Breisenmeister _v._ Supr.
Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).
[297] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.
[298] Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209. See also Carthage T. Co. _v._
Andrews. 1 N. E. Rep., 364.
[299] Morris _v._ Morris, 119 Ind., 341.
[300] Scripps _v._ Foster, 41 Mich., 742.
[301] Mason _v._ Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott _v._ Consumers’ Ice
Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.
[302] Territory _v._ Corbett, 3 Mont., 50.
[303] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y., Oy. and Ter.,
1858).
[304] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636 (overruling s. c., 4 Paige,
460); Breisenmeister _v._ Supreme Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977
(Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).
[305] Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).
[306] N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 2, 618.
[307] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.),
affirmed 112 N. Y., 493.
[308] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.).
[309] Van Valkenburg _v._ Van Valkenburg, 90 Ind., 433.
[310] Dilleber _v._ Home L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 256.
[311] Loder _v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 29.
[312] _Supra_, p. 96.
[313] Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).
[314] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203.
[315] Dreier _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 24 Fed. Rep., 670; cf.
Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct.
Mich., 1890).
[316] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92.
[317] Williams _v._ Johnson, 112 Ind., 273.
[318] Ætna L. I. Co. _v._ Denning, 123 Ind., 390.
[319] Lane _v._ Boicourt, 27 N. E. Rep., 1111.
[320] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.
[321] Campau _v._ North, 39 Mich., 606.
[322] Dolton _v._ Albion, 24 N. W. Rep., 786.
[323] Carrington _v._ St. Louis, 89 Mo., 208; Squires _v._ Chillicothe,
89 Mo., 226; Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.
[324] Mellor _v._ Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 S. W. Rep., 758; 16 S. W. Rep.,
849.
[325] Adrereno _v._ Mut. Res. F. L. I. Co., 34 Fed. Rep., 870.
[326] State _v._ Depoister, 25 Pac. Rep., 1000; but see dissenting
opinion of Bigelow, J.; see also McKinney _v._ Grand St. R. R. Co., 104
N. Y., 352.
[327] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1 (reversed in part by
Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185, but affirmed on this
point).
[328] Cahen _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 41 N. Y. Super., 296 (overruled
on another point but affirmed on this in 69 N. Y., 300).
[329] Jones _v._ Brooklyn, B. & W. E. Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.
[330] Grattan _v._ Metrop. L. I. Co., 92 N. Y., 274.
[331] McKinney _v._ Grand St. R. R. Co., 104 N. Y., 352; see criticism
of this case in Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, 45 N. W. Rep., 977
(Supr. Ct. of Mich., 1890). See also Mason _v._ Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C.,
137; see unanswered queries on similar points in People _v._ Schuyler,
106 N. Y., 298.
[332] See _In re_ Freeman, 46 Hun, 458, in which a will was admitted
to probate on the concurrence of Learned, J., who held that the
relation of physician and surgeon was not established, and Landon,
J., who held that the request to sign constituted a waiver; Williams,
J., dissenting, on the ground that the relation was established in
the case, and the waiver could not be assumed without proof of the
patient’s mental capacity to comprehend the waiver; that it was not
proper to assume testator’s competency to waive in order to enable the
witness to testify that the patient was competent to make a will.
On the analogous case of an attorney as witness to a will, see Matter
of Coleman. 111 N. Y., 220; and N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 836, as
amended Act 1893, c. 295.
[333] Record _v._ Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448 (Supr. Ct.,
Gen. T., N. Y.). See also Hope _v._ Troy and Lansingburg R. R. Co., 40
Hun, 438; Jones _v._ B., B. & W. E. R. R. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.
[334] _Supra_, p. 113, note 7.
[335] 28 Abb. N. C., 37 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1891).
[336] Marx _v._ Manhattan Ry. Co., 56 Hun, 575 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen.
T.).
[337] Buffalo L. & T. Co. _v._ Masonic Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.
[338] _Supra_, p. 98.
[339] Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684. The main point of this decision
was that the information was not necessary; see _infra_. p. 124.
[340] _v._ Briggs, 20 Mich., 34.
[341] _Ibid._
[342] Fraser _v._ Jennison, 42 Mich., 206; Breisenmeister _v._ Supr.
Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr. Ct. Mich., 1890).
[343] Dalman _v._ Koning, 54 Mich., 321.
[344] Brown _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 65 Mich., 306.
[345] Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977.
[346] Cooley _v._ Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep., 176.
[347] Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363; Gartside _v._
Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446 (said to be overruled by 85 Mo.,
249; see 89 Mo., 226, but followed in Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo.,
160). For an argument on the distinction between _information_ and
_communications_, see brief of respondent’s counsel in Gartside _v._
Conn. Mut. L. I. Co.
[348] 27 Mo. App., 231 (1887).
[349] Streeter _v._ City of Breckenridge, 23 Mo. App., 244.
[350] _Ibid._
[351] Corbett _v._ St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 26 Mo. App., 621.
[352] Thompson _v._ Ish, 99 Mo., 160.
[353] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670.
[354] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; s. p., 67 N. Y., 185;
Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.
[355] Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281; Van Orman _v._ Van
Orman, 34 N. Y. St. Rep., 824 (Supr. Ct., G. T.); Wilcox _v._ Wilcox,
46 Hun, 32.
[356] Sloan _v._ N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 125; Dilleber _v._ Home
L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 256.
[357] Cahen _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 300.
[358] 77 N. Y., 564.
[359] See also Staunton _v._ Parker, 19 Hun, 55.
[360] 103 N. Y., 573; see also Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y.,
281.
[361] Grattan _v._ Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74; Edington _v._
Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; see s. c., 67 N. Y., 185.
[362] Per Smith, J., in Steele _v._ Ward, 30 Hun, 555.
[363] People _v._ Brower, 53 Hun, 217.
[364] People _v._ Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.
[365] Burley _v._ Barnhard, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 587 (Supr. Ct., G. T.,
1887).
[366] Pandjiris _v._ McQuillen, 37 N. Y. St. Rep., 602 (Supr. Ct., G.
T., 1891).
[367] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (Supr. Ct., G. T., 1887).
[368] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, _ibid._
[369] In matter of Boury, 8 N. Y. St. Rep., 809 (Supr. Ct., G. T.,
1889).
[370] Brown _v._ R. W. & O. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 439.
[371] Numirich _v._ Supr. Lodge K. & L. of H., 3 N. Y. Supp., 552
(Trial Term, City Ct. of N. Y., 1889); Patten _v._ U. L. & A. Ins.
Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.
[372] Patten _v._ United L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.
[373] In matter of Darragh, 15 N. Y. St. Rep., 452 (N. Y. Surr.).
[374] In matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591 (Supr. Ct., G. T.), see
_infra_, p. 128.
[375] Masonic Mut. Ben. Assn. _v._ Beck, 77 Ind., 203.
[376] Heuston _v._ Simpson, 115 Ind., 62; Penna. Co. _v._ Marion, 23 N.
E. Rep., 973.
[377] Guptill _v._ Verback, 58 Iowa, 98.
[378] Guptill _v._ Verback, 58 Iowa, 98.
[379] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.
[380] Raymond _v._ Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.
[381] _Ibid._
[382] See argument in Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. See
argument for difference between _information_ and _communications_ in
brief for respondent, Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446.
[383] _Supra_, p. 115.
[384] Act of Congress, May 2d, 1890, c. 182.
[385] Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684.
[386] Cahen _v._ Continental L. I. Co., 69 N. Y., 300; see Grattan _v._
Met. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43.
[387] Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 112 N. Y., 493.
[388] Freel _v._ Market St. Cable Ry. Co., 31 Pac. Rep., 730.
[389] People _v._ Glover, 71 Mich., 303.
[390] Per Learned, J., In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458 (Supr. Ct.,
Gen. T., 1887).
[391] Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; and cases in notes following.
[392] People _v._ Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y. Oy. and Ter.,
1858); see Grossman _v._ Supreme Lodge, etc., 6 N. Y. Supp., 821 (Gen.
T. Supr. Ct., 1889), visiting physician at a hospital attending out of
curiosity with regular physician.
[393] People _v._ Schuyler. 106 N. Y., 298, affirming 43 Hun, 88.
[394] In matter of Baird, 11 N. Y. St. Rep., 263 (N. Y. Supr. Ct.,
Chambers, 1887, per Donohue, J.).
[395] See 28 Abb. N. C., 55. note.
[396] Grattan _v._ Met. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.,
1881); 92 N. Y., 274.
[397] People _v._ Murphy, 101 N. Y., 126.
[398] People _v._ Kemmler, 119 N. Y., 580; People _v._ Sliney, 137 N.
Y., 570.
[399] Heath _v._ Broadway & S. A. Ry. Co., 8 N. Y. Supp., 863 (Super.
Ct., Gen. T., 1890).
[400] Henry _v._ N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co., 57 Hun, 76 (Supr. Ct.,
Gen. T., 1890).
[401] Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573; Jones _v._ B., B. & W. E.
Ry. Co., 3 N. Y. Supp., 253.
[402] Ætna L. I. Co. _v._ Deming, 123 Ind., 390; Raymond _v._ B., C. R.
& N. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.
[403] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.,
1881).
[404] Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 13 Hun, 543 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.,
1878), affirmed 77 N. Y., 564. The broad expressions of this latter
case were disapproved in Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103 N. Y., 573, but it
does not appear that this point was not properly decided.
[405] In matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889), 15
N. Y. St. Rep., 452 (N. Y. Surr.) Brigham _v._ Gott, 3 N. Y. Supp., 518
(Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).
[406] Stowell _v._ American Co-op. Assn., 23 N. Y. St. Rep., 706 (Supr.
Ct., Gen. T., 1889).
[407] _Supra_, p. 98.
[408] 8 Mo. App., 363.
[409] 27 Mo. App., 231.
[410] Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 76 Mo., 446; see also Burley
_v._ Barnhard, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 587 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).
[411] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 92 N. Y., 274.
[412] Fisher _v._ Fisher, 129 N. Y., 654.
[413] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.,
1881).
[414] Per Learned, J., In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458.
[415] _Supra_, p. 98.
[416] Collins _v._ Mack, 31 Ark., 684.
[417] Raymond _v._ B., C. R. & Nor. Ry. Co., 65 Iowa, 152.
[418] Campau _v._ North, 39 Mich., 606.
[419] Brown _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 65 Mich., 306.
[420] People _v._ Glover, 71 Mich., 303.
[421] Breisenmeister _v._ Supr. Lodge, etc., 45 N. W. Rep., 977 (Supr.
Ct. Mich., 1890).
[422] Jacobs _v._ Cross, 19 Minn., 523.
[423] Norton _v._ City of Moberly, 18 Mo. App., 457.
[424] Streeter _v._ City of Breckenridge, 23 Mo. App., 244.
[425] Kling _v._ City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231.
[426] Hewitt _v._ Prime, 21 Wend., 77 (N. Y. Supr. Ct. of Judic.,
1839). See Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N.Y., 185.
[427] 53 Hun, 217 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889).
[428] Sloan _v._ N. Y. C. R. R. Co., 45 N. Y., 125.
[429] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 67 N. Y., 185. See also People _v._
Stout, 3 Park Cr. Rep., 670 (N. Y. Oy. and Ter., 1858).
[430] People _v._ Harris, 136 N. Y., 423.
[431] Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun, 347; see also People _v._ Harris,
_supra_.
[432] 77 N. Y., 564; see also s. p., 17 W. D., 566.
[433] 80 N. Y., 281.
[434] 80 N. Y., 281.
[435] Jones _v._ Brooklyn, Bath and West End Ry. Co., 3 N.Y. Supp., 253
(City Ct. of Brooklyn, Gen. T., 1888).
[436] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 24 Hun, 43 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.,
1881).
[437] In matter of Freeman, 46 Hun, 458.
[438] People _v._ Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88, affirmed 106 N. Y., 298.
[439] 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 31 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.), affirmed 112 N. Y.,
493. Although this point was discussed, the case was really decided on
the ground that the objector had lost her right to object if she ever
had it.
[440] Brown _v._ R. W. & O. R. R. Co., 45 Hun, 439 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.).
[441] In matter of O’Neil, 26 N. Y. St. Rep., 242 (N. Y. Surr., 1889).
[442] Taylor, Ev., s. 2; Greenleaf, Ev., s. 2.
[443] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.
[444] Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209.
[445] Van Valkenberg _v._ Van Valkenberg, 90 Ind., 433.
[446] Storrs _v._ Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; see also Dolton _v._ Albion,
24 N. W. Rep., 786.
[447] Page _v._ Page, 41 Mich., 88; see also McQuigan _v._ D. & L. R.
R. Co., 129 N. Y., 50; Roberts _v._ Ogdensburgh, etc., Ry. Co., 29 Hun,
158; McSwyny _v._ Broadway & S. A. Ry. Co., 7 N. Y. Supp., 459; and cf.
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro., s. 873, as amended Act 1893, c. 722.
[448] Winner _v._ Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511.
[449] Lunz _v._ Mass. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 363.
[450] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 4 Paige, 460 (Chancery, 1834); see also
Hanford _v._ Hanford, 3 Edw. Ch., 468 (Vice Chan., 1841).
[451] 14 Wend., 636 (Ct. of Errors, 1835).
[452] 112 N. Y., 493.
[453] Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 17 W. D., 1883 (N. Y. Supr. Ct.,
Gen. T.); Hoyt _v._ Hoyt, 9 N. Y. St. Rep., 731 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T.),
affirmed 112 N. Y., 493.
[454] Johnson _v._ Johnson, 14 Wend., 636; Babcock _v._ People, 15 Hun,
347; Valensin _v._ Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887).
[455] Kelly _v._ Levy, 8 N. Y. Supp., 849 (G. T. N. Y. City Ct., 1890).
[456] Mott _v._ Consumers’ Ice Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143 (N. Y. Com. Pl.,
Sp. T., 1877).
[457] Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1; Renihan _v._ Dennin, 103
N. Y., 573; Record _v._ Village of Saratoga Springs, 46 Hun, 448; Loder
_v._ Whelpley, 111 N. Y., 239.
[458] _Supra_, p. 101 _et seq._
[459] _Supra_, p. 101 _et seq._
[460] _Supra_, p. 107.
[461] Grattan _v._ Nat. L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74.
[462] Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. _v._ Knights T. & M. M. Aid Assn., 126
N. Y., 450.
[463] Edington _v._ Ætna L. I. Co., 13 Hun, 543; see Grattan _v._ Nat.
L. I. Co. of U. S., 15 Hun, 74.
[464] McConnell _v._ City of Osage, 45 N. W. Rep., 550.
[465] Cooley _v._ Foltz, 48 N. W. Rep., 176.
[466] People _v._ Schuyler, 43 Hun, 88 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.),
affirmed 106 N. Y., 298; Stowell _v._ American Co-operative Assn., 23
N. Y. St. Rep., 706 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Henry _v._ N. Y., L. E.
& W. R. R. Co., 57 Hun, 76 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., Gen. T.); Edington _v._
Ætna L. I. Co., 77 N. Y., 564; Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 8
Mo. App., 592.
[467] Gartside _v._ Conn. Mut. L. I. Co., 8 Mo. App., 592.
[468] Feeny _v._ Long Island R. R. Co., 116 N. Y., 375.
[469] Numirich _v._ Supr. Lodge K. & L. of H., 3 N. Y. Supp., 552
(Trial Term, City Ct. of N. Y., 1889); see also _supra_, p. 115.
[470] Herrington _v._ Winn, 60 Hun, 235 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1891).
[471] In matter of Halsey, 29 N. Y. St. Rep., 533 (N. Y. Surr., 1890);
cf. Matter of Darragh, 52 Hun, 591.
[472] Patten _v._ United L. & A. Ins. Assn., 133 N. Y., 450.
[473] Brigham _v._ Gott, 3 N. Y. Supp., 518 (Supr. Ct., Gen. T., 1889);
_supra_, p. 124.
[474] Buffalo L. T. & S. D. Co. _v._ K. T. & Mas. Mut. Aid Assn., 126
N. Y., 450.
[475] Harris _v._ Rupel, 14 Ind., 209; Sullings _v._ Shakespeare, 46
Mich., 408; Storrs _v._ Scougale, 48 Mich., 387; Buffalo, etc., Co.
_v._ Knights T. & Mas. Mut. Aid Assn., 126 N. Y., 450.
[476] Coryell _v._ Stone, 62 Ind., 307; People _v._ Schuyler, 43 Hun,
88, affirmed 106 N. Y., 298.
[477] _Supra_, p. 123.
[478] _Supra_, p. 119.
[479] Penn Mut. L. I. Co. _v._ Wiler, 100 Ind., 92. Valensin _v._
Valensin, 14 Pac. Rep., 87 (Supr. Ct. Cal., 1887); cf. _In re_ Hannah,
11 N. Y. St. Rep., 807.
[480] Mason _v._ Libbey, 2 Abb. N. C., 137; Mott _v._ Consumers’ Ice
Co., 2 Abb. N. C., 143.
[481] Lane _v._ Boicourt, 27 N. E. Rep., 1111; see also Winner _v._
Lathrop, 67 Hun, 511 (N. Y. Supr. Ct., G. T.).
[482] Scripps _v._ Foster, 41 Mich., 742.
[483] Grattan _v._ Metr. L. I. Co., 80 N. Y., 281.
[484] See p. 137, this volume, for the medical laws of the several
States and Territories; for history of physician’s right of action for
services, see Graham _v._ Gautier, 21 Tex., 117; see Wood _v._ Munson,
70 Hun, 468. In Georgia and Alabama a physician’s books are evidence in
such actions. Code Ala., 1886, s. 2,777; Code Ga., 1882, s. 3,777.
[485] Kendall _v._ Grey, 2 Hilt., 300.
[486] Kling _v._ City of Kansas, 27 Mo. App., 231; Pierson _v._ People,
79 N. Y., 424.
[487] _Supra_, p. 103. Matter of Coleman, 111 N. Y., 220.
[488] _Supra_, p. 103.
[489] _Supra_, p. 104.
[490] _Supra_, p. 127.
[491] Laws of N. Y., Act 1893, c. 661, secs. 23, 31. In New York
physicians are also required to attest certificates of the fact of
birth for registration (Act 1893, c. 661, secs. 22, 31), and to certify
the existence of contagious and infectious diseases (_ib._, s. 24).
[492] See suggestions on the policy of the New York law in Conn. Mut.
L. I. Co. _v._ Union Tr. Co., 112 U. S., 250; Pearsall _v._ Elmer, 5
Redf., 181; and _contra_, Edington _v._ Mut. L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.
[493] A valuable note is appended to this last case, citing the law
literature of burial-grounds, burials, etc., and also giving in full
the opinion of the Special Term of the New York Supreme Court, in the
case of Secord _v._ Secord, not elsewhere reported. And see also The
Law of Burial, 4 Bradf., 503. (Matter of Beekman St.)
[494] Ambrose _v._ Kerreson, 10 C. B., 776; Bradshaw _v._ Beard, 12
Com. B., n. s., 344; Johnson _v._ Marinus, 18 Abb. N. C., 72; Hewitt
_v._ Bronson, 5 Daily, 1; Cunningham _v._ Reardon, 98 Mass., 538.
[495] In New York State, section 305 of the Penal Code provides: “A
person has the right to direct the manner in which his body shall be
disposed of after his death; and also to direct the manner in which
any part of his body, which had become separated therefrom during his
lifetime, shall be disposed of; and the provisions of this chapter
do not apply to any case where a person has given directions for the
disposal of his body or any part thereof inconsistent with those
provisions.” See also Patterson _v._ Patterson, 59 N.Y., 583; Me.
R. S., ch. 13, sec. 1; Minn. Gen. Stats., sec. 6,220; N. D. Comp.
Laws. sec. 6,549; Oklahoma Stats., sec. 2,188. See also Williams _v._
Williams, Law Rpts., 20 Ch. D., 659; 2 Wms. on Exrs., p. 968; Secord
_v._ Secord, _supra_.
[496] Chappel _v._ Cooper, 13 M. & W., 252.
[497] Secord _v._ Secord, _supra_; Wyncoop _v._ Wyncoop, 42 Pa. St.,
293; Bogert _v._ Indianapolis, 13 Ind., 135; Snyder _v._ Snyder, 60
How. Prac., 368; Law of Burial, 4 Bradf., 503.
[498] 1 Bishop Crim. Law, sec. 506; see also Roscoe’s Cr. Ev., 445,
446; Stephens’ Dig. Crim. L., sec. 292; Reg. _v._ Clark, 15 Cox C. C.,
171.
[499] Some of the United States have enacted statutes declaring it
to be a misdemeanor to attach or seize under execution a dead body.
Arizona Pen. Code, 491, etc.; Cal. Pen. Code, sec. 295; Me. R. S.,
chap. 124, sec. 26; Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 207, sec. 46; N. Dak. Comp.
Laws, sec. 6,563; Oklahoma Stat., sec. 2,202; R. I. Pub. Stat., sec.
3,222.
[500] So in Meagher _v._ Driscoll, 96 Am. Dec., 759, it was held that a
dead body is not the subject of property, and after burial it becomes
a part of the ground to which it has been committed; “Earth to earth,
ashes to ashes, dust to dust.”
[501] 1st Pres. Ch. _v._ 2d Pres. Ch., 2 Brewster, 372; and see also
Pierce _v._ Proprietors Swan Point Cem., _supra_.
[502] Craig. _v._ 1st Pres. Ch., 88 Pa. St., 42; Charleston _v._
Wentworth Cem., 4 Strob. (S. Car.), 306; Coates _v._ New York City, 7
Cow., 585; Hamilton _v._ New Albany, 30 Ind., 482; Paige _v._ Symonds,
63 N. H., 17.
[503] Peters _v._ Peters, 43 N. J. Eq., 140; Lowry _v._ Plitt, 11
Phila., 303; Weld _v._ Walker, _supra_; _In re_ Downs, 14 N. Y. St.
Rep., 189; Morland _v._ Richardson, 22 Beav., 596; s.c. 24 id., 33;
Guthrie _v._ Weaver, 1 Mo. App., 136; 4 Step. Com., 371; Reg. _v._
Theiss, 10 B. & S., 298.
[504] Weld _v._ Walker, _supra_; see also Johnson _v._ Marinus, _supra_.
[505] See also Com. _v._ Slack, 19 Pick., 304; People _v._ Fitzgerald,
105 N. Y., 146; People _v._ Richards, 138 N. Y., 137. In this last
case it was held that a tomb, although constructed in the form of an
elaborate mausoleum and built above the surface of the ground, was not
a “building, erection or enclosure,” within the meaning of the criminal
statutes defining the crime of burglary in entering a “building,
erection or enclosure;” and hence that entering such a tomb and taking
therefrom a dead body with its grave-clothes and cerements would not
amount to the crime of burglary.
[506] County of Northampton _v._ Innes, 2 Carey (Pa.), 156; Com. _v._
Hannan, 4 Barr. (Pa.), 269; Alleg. Co. _v._ Watts, 3 Barr. (Pa.), 468;
Van Hovenbergh _v._ Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197; Cosford _v._
Board Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; Co. of Alleg. _v._ Shaw, 34
Pa. St., 301; Board of Com. _v._ Jameson, 86 Ind., 154; Mo. Rev. Laws,
sec. 2,469; No. Car. Laws, 1887, chap. 269; Tenn. Code, sec. 6,150;
N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, sec. 2; N. Y. Laws, 1889, chap. 500,
amending sec. 308 of The Pen. Code.
[507] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 171.
[508] 4 Co., 57; 3 Com. Dig., 242.
[509] 1 Black. Com., 347.
[510] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 173.
[511] Giles _v._ Brown, 1 Mill (S. C.) Const., 230; People _v._ Devine,
44 Cal., 452.
[512] Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. 1, p. 405.
[513] Lancaster County _v._ Dern, 2 Grant (Pa.), 262. In this case a
concussion or collision took place in a street between the sleighs of
two parties, whereby a woman sustained an injury by the shaft, or some
other part of one of the parties’ sleigh, striking her immediately
above the eye, and penetrating the brain. Surgical aid was immediately
called in, and the woman received all the care and attention that the
exigencies of the case required till five days afterward, when she died
in consequence of the wound received. On the sixth day the coroner held
an inquest, and in this, an action to recover for his services against
the county, it was _held_ he could recover.
[514] County of Lancaster _v._ Mishler, 100 Pa. St., 624. In this, a
suit by the coroner against the county to recover his fees, it was
_held_ that this presumption was not conclusive, and evidence was
admissible to show that he acted in bad faith and knowingly without
sufficient cause or reason. The Court said: “The duty of a coroner
to hold an inquest rests on sound reason, on that reason which is
the life of the law. It is not a power to be exercised capriciously
and arbitrarily against all reason. The object of an inquest is to
seek information, and obtain and secure evidence, in case of death by
violence or other undue means. If there be reasonable ground to suspect
it was so caused, it becomes the duty of the coroner to act. If he has
no grounds for suspecting that the death was not a natural one, it is a
perversion of the whole spirit of the law to compel the county to pay
for such services.”
[515] County of Fayette _v._ Batton, 108 Pa. St., 591. It appeared
in this case, that nineteen persons came to their death suddenly and
almost simultaneously by an explosion of fire-damp in a coal-mine. The
coroner held a separate inquest over each body at the respective homes
of the deceased, qualifying the same jury separately over each body,
and the inquest returned a separate finding in each case. It was _held_
that this was the necessary and proper course to pursue under the
circumstances, and that the coroner was entitled to the legal fees in
each case. In Boislinieu _v._ Board of Co. Commissioners, 32 Mo., 375,
it was _held_ that the coroner is the sole judge as to the propriety
or necessity of holding the inquest, and his action in that respect is
not subject to revision by the county commissioners, and he is entitled
to fees under the statute notwithstanding the verdict of the coroner’s
jury discloses that the deceased died of a natural death, and not by
casualty or violence.
[516] Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, vol. 4, p. 175.
[517] Garnett _v._ Ferrand, 6 Barn. & Cress., 611.
[518] People _v._ Fitzgerald, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 46.
[519] People _v._ Devine, 44 Cal., 452; Commonwealth _v._ Hawkins, 3
Gray (Mass.), 463.
[520] People _v._ Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146.
[521] Jameson _v._ Board of Comrs., 64 Ind., 524.
[522] Regina _v._ White, 3 Ellis & Ellis (Eng.), 137. In this case
a second inquisition found by a coroner’s jury was quashed by the
court upon application of the defendants who were charged therein
with wilful murder. In People _v._ Budge, 4 Park Crim. Rep. (N.Y.),
519, a coroner’s jury found that the death was caused by suicide, and
nearly four months afterward the coroner summoned another jury and
held a second inquest, at which the jury found that the deceased was
killed by another, whereupon the coroner issued a warrant of commitment
under which the accused was imprisoned, but on _habeas corpus_ he was
discharged from imprisonment on the ground that the second inquisition
was unauthorized.
[523] The King _v._ Ferrand, 3 Barn. & Ald. (Eng.), 260; 2 Hawk P. C.,
77.
[524] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 1 and 10.
[525] County of Northampton _v._ Innes, 2 Casey (Pa.), 156;
Commonwealth _v._ Hannan, 4 Barr (Pa.), 269.
[526] Allegany County _v._ Watts, 3 Barr (Pa.), 462; Van Hoevenbergh
_v._ Hasbrouck, 45 Barb. (N. Y.), 197. The New York legislature has
made provision making the physician’s services in such a case a charge
against the county and the physician must look to the county for his
pay. Cosford _v._ Board of Supervisors, 38 N. Y. St. Rep., 964; 15
N. Y. Supp., 680. In Pennsylvania a physician or surgeon, employed
by the coroner to make a post-mortem examination, may recover from
the county a reasonable compensation for his services; and the county
commissioners have no power to appoint a surgeon to perform such
services, so as to preclude the coroner from selecting a proper person,
in the exercise of his discretion. County of Allegany _v._ Shaw, 34 Pa.
St., 301. It has been held that the authority of a coroner to employ
a chemist to discover whether poison caused the death of one on whose
body he holds an inquest does not restrict him to the employment of a
resident of the county, and that the analysis of the chemist must not
be made in the county of the coroner, and that even though the latter
was, by corrupt appliances of others, induced to employ a chemist, it
is no defence to a suit by the chemist to recover compensation for his
services. Board of Commissioners _v._ Jameson, 86 Ind., 154.
In New York he is empowered by statute to employ not more than two
competent surgeons to make post-mortem examinations and dissections and
to testify to the same. N. Y. Laws of 1874, chap. 535, § 2.
[527] People _v._ Fitzgerald, 105 N. Y., 146. In this case, upon
application of the defendant and upon affidavits showing sufficient
reasons therefor, a coroner of Chemung County, N. Y., directed the
exhumation of the body of a man, who died in California about one
year previous and was buried in Chemung County; for the purpose of a
post-mortem examination to determine whether the deceased was murdered,
and the body was accordingly exhumed, and an examination had without
empanelling a jury. An indictment was found against the defendant
charging her with body-stealing under section 311 of the New York
Penal Code, against body-stealing. It was _held_ that conceding the
proceeding to have been irregular, a conviction under that provision
of the Penal Code could not be sustained, and this, without regard to
the motives which actuated the defendant; that if she had committed any
offence it was not that of body-stealing.
[528] Crisfield _v._ Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622. This
was an action of assault and battery and it appeared that the defendant
was a coroner, and that he held an inquest on the dead body of a man
who died after receiving personal injuries in an affray which he had
with his nephew. A post-mortem examination was about to be made by two
surgeons employed by the coroner for that purpose. The plaintiff, who
was also a physician and surgeon, was in the room when the examination
was about to be entered upon and said that he wished to remain and
witness it, but the coroner asked him to leave, and on his refusing
caused him to be put out of the room. For this act this suit was
brought. It was _held_ that the suit could not be maintained.
[529] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap 26, § 19.
[530] _Ib._, chap. 26, § 11.
[531] Commonwealth _v._ Dunan, 128 Mass., 422.
[532] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26, §§ 12, 13, 17.
[533] Mass. Pub. Stat., chap. 26. § 18.
[534] N. Y. Criminal Code, § 773.
[535] N. Y. Revised Statutes, part iv., chap. iii., § 102.
[536] N. Y. Criminal Code, § 774.
[537] _Ib._, § 775.
[538] _Ib._, § 777.
[539] _Ib._, § 778.
[540] _Ib._, § 779.
[541] N. Y. Crim. Code, § 780.
[542] _Ib._, § 776.
[543] _Ib._, § 782.
[544] _Ib._, § 783.
[545] 2 Hawk P. C., 77; King _v._ Ferrand, 3 Barn. & A. (Eng.), 260.
[546] Rex _v._ Ferrand, 3 B. & Ald., 260.
[547] _In re_ Coroners, 11 Phila. (Pa.), 387.
[548] Crisfield _v._ Perine, 15 Hun, 200, affirmed 81 N. Y., 622.
[549] 2 Hawk P. C., 77.
[550] Matter of Collins, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.), 406; 20 How. Pr., 111.
In this case it was held that a commitment issued by a coroner against
a person charged with murder is not void for the omission of the
allegation that he caused the death “feloniously,” if it is such that
the fact that he caused the death feloniously may be collected on its
face. And see People _v._ Beigler, 3 Park Crim. Rep. (N. Y.), 316.
[551] Rex _v._ Bowen, 6 Car. & P., 602; Rex _v._ Bennett, 6 Car. & P.,
179.
[552] State _v._ Evans, 27 La. An., 297.
[553] Rex _v._ Nicholas, 7 Carr & Payne (Eng.), 538.
[554] People _v._ White, 22 Wend. (N. Y.), 167.
[555] Matter of Collins, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.), 406; 20 How. Pr., 111.
[556] Matter of Ramscar, 10 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.), 442. The prisoner in
this case was detained on a commitment issued by a coroner, he not
having had an examination, and the Court directed an examination before
a magistrate.
[557] N. Y. Code Crim. Pro., § 145.
[558] People _v._ Devine, 44 Cal., 452; Commonwealth _v._ Hawkins, 3
Gray (Mass.), 463.
[559] People _v._ Monden, 103 N. Y., 211.
[560] People _v._ Willett, 92 N. Y., 29. In this case upon the trial
of an indictment for murder, evidence was received on the part of the
prosecution, under objection and exception, to the effect that upon the
coroner’s inquest a witness testified that shortly after the murder
a stranger called at her house and asked the way to Sandy Hill, and
also for a drink of water; that the prisoner with a number of others
was placed around a room, and the witness pointed out the prisoner as
the one who so called; also that a number of persons, including the
prisoner passed behind her, each one repeating the question asked her
by the stranger, and she identified the prisoner by his voice, and that
the prisoner on that occasion did not Footnote: deny that he was such
stranger. It was held that the prisoner was not bound to speak and his
silence could not be regarded as an evidence of guilt, and that the
evidence was improperly received. The Court said: “The question whether
the defendant was bound to speak, and understood that he was at liberty
to speak, if he chose, was submitted to the jury by the Court in his
charge, and an exception taken thereto. The doctrine as to silence
being taken as an implied admission of the truth of allegations spoken
or uttered in the presence of a person, does not apply to silence at
a judicial proceeding or hearing. And if the proceedings before the
coroner were of a judicial character the evidence was erroneously
received. It is very apparent that the examination before the coroner
partook of a judicial character, and what then transpired must be
considered as a part of the proceedings; the coroner was there, a jury
had been empanelled, and witnesses were examined whose testimony was
returned as a portion of the coroner’s proceedings. It is difficult to
see upon what ground it can be claimed that the experiments which were
made were not in connection with the proceedings before the coroner and
a part thereof.”
[561] Hendrickson _v._ People, 10 N. Y., 13.
[562] People _v._ McMahon, 15 N. Y., 384.
[563] Teachout _v._ People, 41 N. Y., 7.
[564] People _v._ Mondon, 103 N. Y., 211.
[565] People _v._ McGloin, 91 N. Y., 241.
[566] Williams _v._ Commonwealth, 29 Pa. St., 102. In this case the
prosecution was permitted to prove upon the trial that a justice
of the peace had held an inquest on the body of a dead person, and
appointed another person foreman of the inquest, and directed him to
swear witnesses; and while the inquest was still sitting, the foreman
called upon and requested the defendant to be sworn and give evidence
as a witness, and he was duly sworn and was examined by the foreman, in
presence of the inquest. It was held on appeal that his evidence was
admissible. On this point the Court said: “If the defendant had been
awakened out of sleep, charged with crime, and then, in the necessary
confusion of his faculties sworn to testify, I should have steadfastly
resisted the subsequent introduction of the testimony against him.
The common law, which justifies an accused man in entire silence,
appears in beautiful contrast to the continental systems, which permit
the criminal to be racked by inquisitorial skill, until something
be wrung from him which may be patched up into proof of guilt. This
case shows nothing of the kind. The phrase ‘called up’ commented on
by the counsel, does not appear in the record, and if employed by the
witnesses related doubtless to the ordinary case of calling forth
a witness, and not awakening him from slumber. When the defendant
was sworn before the inquest, he had neither been charged with nor
suspected of crime. He might have declined to testify, and this
would have pointed suspicion directly to him. He took the risk of a
statement, and cannot complain that he met the legitimate consequences
of the act. In the eye of all the authorities, it was a voluntary
statement.”
[567] Clough _v._ The State, 7 Neb., 320.
[568] The facts upon which the following statements are based have been
largely drawn from Taylor. See Stevenson’s Taylor, vol. i., p. 204 _et
seq._
[569] Recent attention to such subjects by Italian writers places them
in the foremost rank. Although their system of judicature differs from
our own, this fact does not lessen the value of their medico-forensic
literature.
[570] Canada Med. and Surg. Journal, 1875, vol. iii., pp. 56-60.
[571] Some interesting facts by Dr. W. H. Holmes regarding “The
Condition of Bodies Long Buried” may be found in the Boston Med. and
Surg. Journal, July 23d, 1891.
[572] Quar. Journal of Psychological Medicine, N. Y., 1869, vol. iii.,
p. 691.
[573] See writer’s article, “Cephalometry, Craniometry,” in “Reference
Handbook of the Medical Sciences.”
[574] See writer’s “Cruise of the Corwin” to Alaska and the Northwest
Arctic Ocean, Washington, 1883.
[575] See writer’s article, “Feet,” in “Reference Handbook of the
Medical Sciences;” also, Ellis, T.S., “On the Human Foot,” London, 1889.
[576] See Dwight: “The Closure of the Cranial Sutures as a Sign of
Age,” Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, April 29th, 1890.
[577] See Dwight: “The Sternum as an Index of Sex, Height, and Age,”
Journal of Anatomy and Physiology, vol. xxiv.
[578] Boston Med. and Surg. Journal, March, 1850, vol. xii., p. 162.
[579] The British Medical Journal, April 18th, 1874, p. 527.
[580] Taylor’s “Med. Jurisprudence,” vol. i., p. 157.
[581] Theatre-goers are familiar with the establishment of personal
identity by means of traces of a perfume in the play of “Diplomacy.”
[582] New York Med. Journal, vol. x., p. 412.
[583] New York Med. Record, August 18th, 1877.
[584] Annales d’Hygiene Publique, 1883.
[585] Med. Gazette, vol. xli., p. 650.
[586] In a series of papers to Riv. Sper. di freniat, Reggio-Emilia,
1883.
[587] See Mr. Galton’s paper in Nature, June 21st, 1888, p. 173; also
in his recent work on Finger Prints.
[588] For a few classical citations that are more erudite than
profitable see Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Berlin., 1888, xx., p. 412.
[589] See “Guy’s Hospital Report,” xix., 1874; also “Histoire Médicale
de Tatouage” in Archiv. de Médecine Navale, tom. 11, 12, Paris, 1869. A
later study on the medico-legal importance of tattooing may be found in
Lo Spallanzani, Roma, 1891, 2s, xx., 169, 208.
[590] According to Lombroso, all who are tattooed on the back or the
sexual organs have without exception either been among the Pacific
Islands or sojourned in a prison.
[591] A paper by Dr. J. N. Hall on “The Medico-Legal Value of
Powder-Stains in Gunshot Wounds,” with a report of cases, may be found
in the Transactions of the Colorado Medical Society, 1890, xx., 94.
[592] Bulletin de l’Acad. de Méd., 17 janvier, 1853, t. xviii., p. 348.
[593] La Escula de Medicina, Mexico, 1880-81.
[594] Lyon Medical, 1880.
[595] Med. Press and Circular, May 30th, 1888, p. 576.
[596] Phil. Trans., B., 1891.
[597] See Proc. Royal Soc., London, May 28th, 1891. A medico-legal
study of imprints may also be found in Archiv d’Anthropologie Criminel,
15th July, 1891.
[598] See Annual of the Universal Medical Sciences, 1888, vol. v., pp.
143-147.
[599] See paragraph II., General Orders No. 33, Adjutant-General’s
Office, April 1st, 1889.
[600] In 1892 only three failures are recorded.
[601] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[602] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[603] Arrêt du tribunal de Lyon, 8 et 15 décembre, 1859.
[604] “Lectures on Med. Jurisprud.,” 1878, pp. 422, 423.
[605] See Figs. 10 and 11.
[606] “Lehrbuch der Speciellen Chirurgie.”
[607] “Manuel de Leg.,” 5th Ed., 1892.
[608] “Précis de Med. Leg.,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[609] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th American Edition (1892).
[610] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th American Edition (1892).
[611] London Med. Gaz., vol. xvi., p. 596.
[612] Ch. Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., p. 205.
[613] Taylor’s “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[614] London Lancet, Jan. 21st, 1893, and N. Y. Med. Journal, March
11th, 1893, and May 13th, 1893.
[615] Ann. d’Hyg., 1847, t. 2, p. 377.
[616] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[617] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[618] “On Homicide,” p. 187.
[619] Med. Gaz., May, 1840.
[620] Guy’s Hosp. Gaz., 1873.
[621] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[622] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[623] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[624] Vibert: “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[625] Quoted by Vibert from the “Traite de pathologie externe” of
Follin and Duplay.
[626] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[627] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[628] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[629] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[630] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[631] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[632] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[633] Taylor: “Medical Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[634] Med. Times, 1854, ii., p. 238.
[635] “Ueber die Kopf-Verletzungen,” 1842, p. 57.
[636] “Précis de Médecine Légale,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 203.
[637] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[638] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[639] Lutaud: “Man. d. Méd. Lég.,” 5th Ed., 1892.
[640] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[641] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[642] Taylor: “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[643] Willis: “Circumstantial Evidence,” p. 97.
[644] “Lectures on Med. Jurisprudence,” p. 424.
[645] See “Med. Leg.,” trad. par Brouardel, p. 601.
[646] “Med. Jurisprudence.” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[647] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[648] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[649] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[650] Ann. d’Hyg., 1863, t. 1. p. 463.
[651] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[652] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[653] Vibert: “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[654] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[655] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 264.
[656] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[657] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890, p. 246.
[658] “Précis de Méd. Lég.,” 2d Ed., 1890.
[659] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[660] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer Ed., 1892, p. 334.
[661] London Lancet, 1873, i., p. 697.
[662] “An American Text-Book of Surgery,” p. 496.
[663] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[664] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[665] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[666] Edin. Med. and Surg. Jour., Oct., 1845, p. 527.
[667] “Manuel de Méd. Lég.,” 5th Ed., 1892.
[668] “Méd. Lég.,” t. 2, p. 243.
[669] Beck, vol. ii., pp. 329, 333; Wharton and Stillé, 2d Ed., p. 580;
N. A. Med. and Chir. Review, March, 1859, p. 299; N. Y. Med. Times,
Apr. and May, 1855; Amer. Jour. Med. Sciences, July, 1861, p. 292, and
Aug., 1829, p. 307.
[670] Amer. Jour. Med. Sci., July, 1861, p. 292. Case of bullet in
heart wall for twenty years.
[671] Edin. Med. and Surg. Jour., Oct., 1844, p. 557.
[672] “Méd. Lég.,” t. 2, p. 253.
[673] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[674] “Manuel Méd. Lég.,” 5th Ed., 1892.
[675] Quoted by Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p.
340.
[676] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 351.
[677] Senn, “Experimental Surgery,” 1889.
[678] Senn, “Experimental Surgery,” 1889.
[679] “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[680] Med. Times and Gazette, 1864, ii., 527.
[681] Med.-Chir. Rev., 1836, p. 296.
[682] “Med Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 347.
[683] Lancet, 1872, ii., p. 10.
[684] Lancet, 1870, ii., p. 471.
[685] See Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 348.
[686] “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892.
[687] See Taylor, “Med. Jurisprud.,” 11th Amer. Ed., 1892, p. 351.
[688] Reported by Teale, Lon. Clin. Society, Feb. 26th, 1875.
[689] Reineke, Brit. and For. Med. and Surg. Rev., April, 1876.
[690] “Experiences sur les effets de chaleur, etc.,” Jour. de Physique,
lxiii., p. 77. Paris, 1805.
[691] Henke’s “Zeitschrift,” 1860.
[692] Brit. and For. Med.-Chir. Rev., 1855.
[693] Caspar’s “Vierteljahrschrift,” 1864.
[694] Flint, “Practice of Medicine,” p. 685; Aitken, “Practice of
Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 388.
[695] Flint, “Practice of Medicine,” p. 685; Aitken, “Practice of
Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 391.
[696] Levick, Amer. Jour. Med. Sciences, Oct., 1866.
[697] Katzenbach, New York Med. Jour., vol. xvii., p. 91.
[698] Wood, Phil. Med. Times, Aug. 5th, 1876.
[699] Hanfield Jones, Brit. Med. Jour., July, 1870, p. 35.
[700] Pouillet, Comptes Rendus, 1836, p. 782.
[701] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 8th Amer. Ed., p. 444; also the
Med. Gazette, vol. xviii., p. 89.
[702] Chambert, Annales d’Hygiene. 1859.
[703] Buchner, Prager Vierteljahr., i., p. 129.
[704] Tidy, “Legal Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 124.
[705] Taylor, “Med. Jurisprudence,” 8th Amer. Ed., p. 407.
[706] Tidy, “Legal Medicine,” vol. ii., p. 99.
[707] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” vol. i., p. 314; Schjerning,
Vierteljahr. für gericht. Med., xli., 1884.
[708] The “Parkman Case,” Boston, 1850.
[709] Report of the “Druse Case,” Trans. New York State Med. Society,
1887, p. 417.
[710] See the Druse Case above.
[711] Annales d’Hygiene, 1835, ii., p. 387.
[712] Edinb. Med. and Surg. Journal, vol. xxxv., p. 320, April, 1831.
[713] Ann. d’Hygiene, 1846, i., p. 320.
[714] Friedrich’s Blatter f. gericht. Med., 1877, Heft iii., p. 210.
[715] “Path. Research, on Vital and Post-Mortem Burning,” 1850.
[716] “Forensic Medicine,” vol. iv., p. 299.
[717] “Forensic Medicine,” Ed. 1877, p. 886.
[718] “Med. Jurisprudence,” Amer. Ed., 1880. p. 408.
[719] Annales d’Hygiene, 1859, 2d ser., xi., 342, 379.
[720] Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., Bd. xxxvi., Heft i., 1880.
[721] Eulenb., Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xli., 1885, xlii., 1887.
[722] Tidy, “Legal Med.,” vol. i., p. 108; also Buzzard, London Lancet,
vol. i., p. 60, 1863.
[723] Eulenberg’s Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xli., p. 44 _et seq._
[724] “Die Verbrennungen und Verbrühungen.”
[725] Wien. med. Presse, 1868, pp. 309, 605.
[726] Berliner klinische Wochenschrift, 1876, No. 17; 1877, No. 46.
[727] Eulenberg’s Vierteljahr. f. gericht. Med., xlii., p. 47.
[728] See page 643 of this section
[729] Asclepiad, 1890, vii., pp. 102-117.
[730] Compt. Rendu Soc. Biol., 1890, ii., pp. 383-387.
[731] Archiv. Biol. de Gand., 1887, vii., pp. 217-227.
[732] “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873.
[733] “Lehrbuch gericht. Med.,” 1891, p. 502.
[734] Bull. Acad. Méd., 1876, v., p. 763.
[735] Archiv. gén. de Méd., 1856, p. 302.
[736] “Lehrb. d. ger. Med.,” 1891. p. 500.
[737] “Leçons sur les anæsthésiques,” Paris, 1875, p. 471.
[738] Viert. f. ger. Med., etc., 1871, xv., pp. 58-96.
[739] Translation in Ann. d’Hyg., 1832, viii., p. 432.
[740] Med. Record, N. Y., 1882, xxii., p. 427.
[741] See Maier (Friedreich’s Blat., 1882, p. 460); Moreaud (Virchow’s
Archiv, 1880, i., p. 648); Petrina (Prag. med. Woch., 1880, No. 39);
Wagner (Jahr. f. Psych., 1889, viii.). [Hofmann, “Lehrbuch,” pp.
570-572]. See Cases 17, 19, 31.
[742] Bull. Ac. Méd., 1876, v., p. 761.
[743] Ass. Franç. Av. Sci. (1883), 1884, xii., pp. 1042-1045.
[744] Rev. d’Hyg. thér., 1890, ii., pp. 67-72 and 131-137.
[745] Alger. Méd., 1887, xv., pp. 78-90.
[746] Viert. ger. and öff. Med., 1870, xii., pp. 340-369.
[747] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., pp. 388-402.
[748] Viert. f. ger. Med., etc., 1870, xiii., pp. 247-260.
[749] _Loc. cit._
[750] “Med. Jur.,” Amer. ed., 1892, p. 411.
[751] Tidy, “Med. Jur.,” Amer. ed., 1884, iii., p. 263.
[752] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., p. 393.
[753] “Lehrb. d. ger. Med.,” 1891, p. 504.
[754] “Pendaison,” etc., 1870, p. 169.
[755] _Op. cit._, p. 393.
[756] _Op. cit._, p. 504.
[757] _Op. cit._, p. 394.
[758] “Handb. ger. Med.,” i., 1881, p. 569.
[759] Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (1879), 1880, i., p. 310.
[760] Compt. rend. Soc. Biol. (1881), 1882, iii., pp. 159-161 and
165-168.
[761] Tidy, _op. cit._
[762] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 413.
[763] Lyon thesis, 1883, No. 188, p. 85.
[764] Tidy, _op. cit._
[765] Gaz. Méd. de Par., 1875, xlvi., pp. 90-92.
[766] “Handb. ger. Med.,” i., p. 571.
[767] Tidy, _op. cit._
[768] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” etc., p. 174.
[769] Virchow’s Archiv, 1880, lxxix., p. 409, and 1878, lxxiv., p. 401.
[770] Tidy, “Leg. Med.,” Am. ed., iii., p. 265.
[771] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 623 and 632.
[772] Edinb. Med. Jour., 1856, ii., p. 824.
[773] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 414.
[774] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 632.
[775] Paris thesis, 1874, No. 291.
[776] Paris thesis, 1859, No. 9.
[777] Page, “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873.
[778] “Ger. Med.,” i., 573.
[779] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” etc., p. 178.
[780] _Op. cit._, p. 29.
[781] Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1867, vii., pp. 140-174.
[782] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 576.
[783] _Ib._, p. 572.
[784] “Ger. Med.,” i., p. 575.
[785] “On the Value of Certain Signs,” etc., Edinburgh, 1873, p. 24.
[786] “Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1886, xlv., p. 295.
[787] “Leg. Med.,” Am. ed., iii., p. 267.
[788] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 415.
[789] Ann. d’Hyg., 1867, xxviii., pp. 388-402.
[790] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 416.
[791] _Ib._, p. 415.
[792] “Pend.,” p. 186.
[793] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 415.
[794] _Op. cit._, p. 415.
[795] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892. p. 419.
[796] “Pend.,” p. 208.
[797] _Ib._, p. 242.
[798] Med. Times and Gaz., 1871, i., p. 671, and 1876, i., p. 93.
[799] Med. Record, N. Y., 1882, xxii., p. 428.
[800] Ohio Med. Record, 1878, ii., pp. 350-352.
[801] Arch. Laryngol., N. Y., 1880, i., p. 144.
[802] Indian Med. Gaz., 1888, xxiii., p. 299.
[803] Archiv. anthrop. crim., Paris, 1886, i., p. 229.
[804] “Lehrbuch f. ger. Med.,” 5th ed., 1890-91.
[805] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 394.
[806] Aertz. Intel. Bl., 1876, xxiii., p. 324.
[807] Practitioner, 1870, iv., p. 193.
[808] Mitt. d. Wien med. Doct. Colleg., 1878, iv., pp. 97-112.
[809] Centralb. f. med. Wiss., 1875, xiii., p. 403.
[810] Arch. gen. de Med., 1856, vii., p. 310.
[811] Archiv. anthrop. crim., Paris, 1886, i., p. 229.
[812] Bull. Acad. Roy. Med., 1893, vii., pp. 331-342.
[813] Lyon thesis, 1883, No. 188.
[814] Paris thesis, 1879, No. 172. p. 39.
[815] “Forensic Med.,” Appendix, p. 561.
[816] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 394.
[817] Tidy, _op. cit._, p. 240.
[818] Tardieu, “Pendaison,” 1870, p. 16.
[819] Lyon thesis, 1891, No. 647.
[820] Münch. med. Woch., 1893, xl., pp. 87-91, 127-129, 194.
[821] Tracy, Pop. Sci. Mo., 1878, xiii., pp. 349-354.
[822] Lancet, 1847, i., p. 403.
[823] “Med. Jur.,” Am. Ed., 1892, p. 396.
[824] See articles of Huppert, Vier. ger. Med., etc., xxiv., pp.
237-252, and Müller-Beninga, Berlin. klin. Woch., 1877, xiv., p. 481.
[825] Jour. Amer. Med. Assn., 1885, i., p. 658.
[826] “Pend.,” etc., p. 22.
[827] Dorpat Diss., 1891.
[828] Arch. gén. de Méd., 1856, vii., p. 315.
[829] _Op. cit._, p. 308.
[830] Lancet, 1871, ii., p. 98.
[831] Glasgow Med. Jour., 1880, xiv., p. 387.
[832] Philadelphia Medical Times, 1875.
[833] Lancet, 1869, i., p. 636.
[834] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 29.
[835] _Op. cit._, p. 245.
[836] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 398.
[837] _Op. cit._, p. 523.
[838] _Op. cit._, Levy’s translation, 1881, p. 363.
[839] Deutsch. Archiv f. Staats, 1870, xxviii., p. 313.
[840] _Op. cit._, p. 281.
[841] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 29.
[842] _Op. cit._, p. 287.
[843] “Med. Jur.,” p. 527.
[844] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 399.
[845] Vier. f. ger. Med., 1870, xii., pp. 340-369.
[846] _Ib._, 1870, xiii., pp. 247-260.
[847] _Op. cit._, p. 281.
[848] Pellier, _op. cit._, p. 83.
[849] Ind. Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 30.
[850] “Handbuch,” p. 571.
[851] Wien. med. Presse, 1881-1882, xxii., p. 1533.
[852] Vier. f. ger. Med., 1881, xxxv., p. 201.
[853] Lehrbuch, p. 532.
[854] _Op. cit._, p. 245.
[855] See Brit. and For. Med. Rev., ii., p. 214.
[856] _Op. cit._, p. 98.
[857] Paris thesis, 1859, No. 9.
[858] Paris thesis, 1874, No. 291.
[859] _Op. cit._, p. 245.
[860] _Op. cit._, p. 533.
[861] Med. Times and Gaz., 1871, i., p. 671.
[862] Lyon Méd., 1883, xliv., p. 11.
[863] Lehrbuch, p. 535.
[864] Vier. f. ger. Med. and öff. San., 1881, xxxv., pp. 201-248.
[865] Virchow’s Archiv, 1870, xlix., p. 290.
[866] Rev. Méd. de l’Est, 1890, xxii., pp. 545-554.
[867] Ann. d’Hyg., 1885, xiii., pp. 209-228.
[868] _Op. cit._, p. 105.
[869] Lehrbuch, p. 537.
[870] _Op. cit._, p. 607.
[871] _Op. cit._, p. 597.
[872] _Op. cit._, pp. 44, 54.
[873] Bull. Soc. Méd. Lég., Paris, 1875-76, iv., p. 373.
[874] Indian Med. Gaz., 1881, xvi., p. 275.
[875] Ann. d’Hyg., 1886, xvi., pp. 108-125.
[876] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 408.
[877] Freidreich’s Bl. f. ger. Med., 1890, xxi., pp. 149-171.
[878] Vier. f. ger. Med., etc., 1880, xxxii., p. 232, foot-note.
[879] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1880, p. 448.
[880] Indian Med. Gaz., 1876, xi., p. 3.
[881] _Op. cit._, p. 132.
[882] _Op. cit._, p. 66.
[883] Amer. Jour. Obstet., 1886, xix., pp. 349-352.
[884] Tardieu., _op. cit._, p. 291.
[885] “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1892, p. 428.
[886] Trans. Mass. Leg. Soc., 1878, i., pp. 14-24.
[887] See Ogston, p. 550.
[888] Med. Times and Gaz., 1878, i., p. 603.
[889] Johnson, Lancet, 1878, ii., p. 501.
[890] Med. chir. Trans., 1862, xlv., p. 449.
[891] Archiv. gén. de Méd., 1856, vii., p. 300.
[892] _Op. cit._, p. 539.
[893] “Amer. Pract.,” 1872, vi., pp. 193-206.
[894] Brit. Med. Jour., 1879, i., p. 970.
[895] “Nature,” 1879, xx., p. 108.
[896] Gaz. hebd. Méd., Paris, 1872, ix., p. 806.
[897] Bull. Acad. Méd., Paris, 1876, v., p. 764.
[898] Jour. Amer. Med. Ass., 1891, xvi., p. 805.
[899] Trans. Amer. Pæd. Soc., 1891, iii., pp. 128-132.
[900] Brit. Med. Jour., 1880, ii., pp. 122-124 and 163-165.
[901] Med. Rec., N. Y., 1893, xliii., p. 289.
[902] Amer. Jour. Med. Sci., 1891, ci., pp. 109-116.
[903] Coll. and Clin. Record, 1892, xiii., pp. 170-172.
[904] Glasgow Med. Jour., 1885, xxiv., pp. 344-354.
[905] Med. Press and Circ., 1889, xlviii., p. 433.
[906] Asclepiad, 1885, ii., pp. 171-187.
[907] Lancet, 1885, i., pp. 245-247, 289-292.
[908] Asclepiad, 1890, vii., p. 201.
[909] Bull. Acad. Méd., Paris, 1876, v., pp. 611, 754, 904; and 1881,
x., pp. 847-852.
[910] _Op. cit._, p. 279.
[911] _Op. cit._, p. 288.
[912] Indian Med. Gaz., 1890, xxv., p. 257.
[913] Brit. Med. Jour., 1877, i., p. 444.
[914] _Ib._, 1891, p. 399.
[915] Lancet, 1889, ii., p. 255.
[916] Paris thesis, 1877, No. 327.
[917] Hofmann, “Lehrbuch,” p. 514.
[918] “Méd. Lég.,” 1874, p. 406.
[919] _Op. cit._, p. 554.
[920] _Op. cit._, p. 275.
[921] _Op. cit._, p. 288.
[922] _Op. cit._, p. 23.3
[923] Tardieu, _op. cit._, pp. 296, 298.
[924] Physician, etc., New York, 1880, xiii., p. 181.
[925] Trans. Mass. Med. Leg. Soc., 1878, i., pp. 14-24.
[926] _Op. cit._, p. 291.
[927] Second Kings, viii., 15.
[928] Taylor, _op. cit._, p. 482.
[929] _Op. cit._, p. 434.
[930] Taylor, “Med. Jur.,” Am. ed., 1880, p. 485.
[931] _Op. cit._, p. 31.
[932] Jour. de Méd. de Toulouse, 1851, iii., p. 237.
[933] _Op. cit._, p. 295.
[934] Ann. d’Hyg., 1843, xxx., p. 225.
[935] See writer’s “Bathing and Boating Accidents,” Jour. American
Medical Association, April 19th, 1890.
[936] See writer’s article, “Memory, Diseases of,” in “Reference
Handbook of the Medical Sciences.”
[937] Medical Record, August 22d, 1891.
[938] “Medico-Legal Experience in Calcutta,” Edinburgh, 1891.
[939] Indian Medical Gazette, December, 1888.
[940] Jour. of Orificial Surgery, April 1st, 1893, p. 709.
[941] Trans. of the Massachusetts Medico-Legal Society, vol. i., No. 8,
1885.
[942] Lesser, Dr. Adolph: “Ueber die wichtigsten Sectionsbefunde bei
dem Tode durch Ertrinken in dünnflüssigen Medien,” Berlin, 1884.
[943] Gilberti, Dr. A.: “I Segni dell’ Annegamento nel Cadavere in
Putrefazione,” 1889.
[944] Barlerin, Paul, le Dr.: “Etude Médico-légale sur la Submersion,”
Tarare, 1891.
[945] Fagerlund, L. W.: Ueber das Eindringen von Ertränkungsflüssigkeit
in die Gedärme.” Vierteljahrschrift für gerichtl. Med. und off.
Sanitätswesen,” Berlin, 1890.
[946] Circular No. 3, War Department, Surgeon-General’s Office,
Washington, 1871, pp. 129-131.
[947] The subject has been well studied by Dr. A. Carré, Archiv. de
l’Anthropologie Criminelle et des Sciences Pénales, 15 Janv., 1892.
[948] Flint’s “Text-Book of Physiology,” Ed. 1877, p. 517; I. Forster,
“Zeitschrift für Biologie,” tome ix., 1872.
[949] Foster, “Handbook of Physiology,” Ed. 1880, p. 457; Kirke’s
“Handbook of Physiology,” 11th Ed., vol. i., p. 311.
[950] F. Spaeth, “Archiv für Hygiene,” 1886, pp. 68-81.
[951] Rochard, “Encyclopæd. d’Hygiene,” vol. ii., p. 796.
[952] For elaborate statements consult Edward Smith, “Foods,” Int. Sci.
Ser., N. Y. Ed., 1878; Pavy, “On Food,” 2d Ed., 1881, N. Y., p. 467;
Buck, “Hygiene,” Ed. 1879, vol. i., p. 190; Parkes, “Hygiene,” Ed.
1873, p. 179; Levy, “Traïté de Hygiene,” vol. i., p. 739.
[953] Corrigan, “On Famine and Fever,” etc., Dublin, 1849.
[954] Donnivan, “On Famine,” Dublin Med. Press, 1848, p. 67.
[955] Folet, Ann. de Hygiene et de Méd. Legal, 2d ser., vol. xlviii.
[956] Sloan, London Med. Gazette, vol. xvii., p. 265; Martin, Med.
Times and Gazette, 1861, vol. i., p. 344.
[957] Chossat, “Récherches experimentales sur inanition,” Paris, 1843,
p. 45.
[958] “Récherches experimentales sur inanition,” 1845.
[959] Bouchardat, “De l’Alimentation insuffissant,” Paris, 1852, p. 10.
[960] Greenfield, Brit. Med. Jour., Oct. 20th, 1877.
[961] Dr. McLoughlin, London Lancet, Nov. 2d, 1878.
[962] Reg. _v._ Jacobs and wife, Carmarthen Summer Assizes, 1890; also
London Lancet, 1890, vol. ii., p. 132.
[963] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” Syd. Soc. Pub., vol. ii., p. 29;
London Lancet, April 11th, 1877, pp. 580-620.
[964] Thornhill, Med. Gazette, Nov. 28th, 1835, p. 390.
[965] Caspar, “Forensic Medicine,” Syd. Soc. Pub., vol. ii., p. 36;
Martin, Med. Times and Gazette, March 30th, 1861 (Case 132).
[966] “The Penge Case;” Reg. _v._ Staunton, Central Crim. Court, 1877.
[967] The case of Reg. _v._ Jacobs and wife.
[968] Holland, “On Morbid Effects of Deficiency of Food,” London, 1839.