{ 17} _Vide_ Sewell, on the Law of Coroners.
{ 28} What were the tests applied, to prove that Laudanum had been administered to the infant? If the child did not die from the effects of Laudanum, what caused its death?
{ 32} Lord Lyndhurst, in a recent case, laid down the following rule:—
“In these cases there is no difference between a licensed physician or surgeon, and a person acting as physician or surgeon without license. In either case, if a party having a competent degree of skill and knowledge, makes an accidental mistake in the treatment of a patient, through which mistake death ensues, he is not thereby guilty of manslaughter.”
“But if where proper medical assistance can be had, a person totally ignorant of the science of medicine—takes on himself a violent and dangerous remedy to one labouring under disease, and death ensues in consequence of that dangerous remedy having been so administered, then he is guilty of manslaughter; or a man may be guilty of manslaughter if, notwithstanding _he has a competent knowledge of medicine_, _he be guilty of gross rashness in the application of a remedy or gross negligence in attending his patient afterwards_. Also, where a man doing a lawful act, which is at the same time dangerous, he neglects to use _proper caution_, death ensues, if it takes place within a _twelve month_ and a day; but if his life exceeds that period, the law will presume that his death proceeded from some other cause than the wound.”—1 Hawk, P. C. 23 s. 90.
“If a man be sick of a disease which in all likelihoods would terminate his life, and another give him a _wound or hurt which hastens_ his _death_, this is such a killing as would constitute murder.”—See 1 Lord Hale, 428.—_Vide_ Sewell, on the Law of Coroners.
{ 39} A term given to a fluid attending suppuration, one of the consequences of inflammatory action.
{ 46} In the course of the enquiry, the coroner remarked he did not know who might have got up that inquest, and that had he been apprised of it, he should have _appointed some person unacquainted with the deceased and the circumstances_, to have made the post mortem examination. Mr. Webber observed, “Sir, you cannot be in doubt upon that score, as you must admit, on the 15th of May, I enclosed you a note from Mr. Pilgrim, your brother coroner, to whom, supposing him to have been the coroner for the district, I mentioned all the circumstances connected with the deceased, and he conceived it was a proper case, in justice to all parties, that an inquiry should take place; and sir, I apprehend I have done your friend, on your left, no injustice, by getting his own friend Mr. Coleby to examine the body, for you cannot suppose, that the very cordial manner in which you saw Mr. Coleby shake Dr. Bell by the hand, he could have had any unfair or ill feeling towards him.”