dical men examined, stated that such a preparation is called an infusion not a decoction,—which is made by boiling the substance in the water.
The prisoner's counsel insisted that he was entitled to an acquittal on the ground that the medicine was misdescribed.
Lawrence, J. This objection will not hold. The infusion and decoction are ejusdem generis, and the variance is immaterial. The question is, whether the prisoner administered any matter or thing to this woman with intent to procure abortion.
Witnesses were called for the prisoner to prove that the shrub he used was not savin.
The counsel for the prosecution, insisted, that even in that case the prisoner might be found guilty upon the last count of the indictment, which charged that he administered a large quantity "of a certain mixture to the jurors unknown, then and there being a noxious and destructive thing.
The prisoner's counsel objected that unless the shrub was savin, there was no evidence that the mixture was "noxious and destructive."
Lawrence, J. In an indictment on this clause of the statute, it was improper to introduce these words; and although they are introduced, there is no necessity to prove them. It is immaterial whether the shrub was savin or not, or whether or not it was capable of procuring abortion,[1] or even whether the woman was actually with child. If the prisoner believed at the*
- ↑ At the Chelmsford Assizes. Aug 1820, Robin Collins was indicted for administering steel filings and penny-royal water to a woman, with the intent to procure abortion. Mr. Baron Wood told the jury, in point of law, that if they were satisfied that the prisoner had administered the drugs with intent to procure miscarriage, though they were incapable of producing such effect, and though the young woman had willingly consented to take them, the case was within the statute, and they were
