particularly when coupled with the fact, that the beef used was half of a piece, the other half of which had been used by the family two days before, without any ill consequences.
6. The next article of the moral evidence relates to suspicious conduct on the part of the prisoner during the illness of the person poisoned. Under this head it is necessary merely to state what I conceive to be, with reference to the present branch of the proof, the duty of the medical practitioner who happens to attend a case of poisoning.
In such a conjuncture he is undoubtedly placed in a situation of some delicacy. But on considering the matter attentively, good reasons will appear why he should adopt the course, which, I believe, our courts of justice will expect of him, and keep some watch over the actions of any individual who is suspected of having committed the crime. On the one hand, no one else is by education and opportunities so capable of remarking the motions of the different members of the family dispassionately, without officiousness, and without being observed. And on the other hand, it is undoubtedly a part of his private duty as practitioner, to protect his patient against any farther criminal attempts, as well as part of his public duty to prevent the vomited matter and other subjects of analysis from being secretly put away or destroyed. No one can be so occupied without many accessary particulars coming under his notice. And certain it is, that on several trials the practitioner has contributed, with great credit to himself, a considerable part of the pure moral proof. For an example of discreet and able conduct under these trying circumstances, the reader will do well to refer to that of Dr. Addington, the chief crown witness, both as to medical and moral facts, in the case of Miss Blandy.[1] It is almost unnecessary to add, that in acting as now recommended, the physician must conduct himself with circumspection, in order to avoid giving unnecessary offence, or alarming the guilty person.
7, and 9. On the seventh article, which respects the conduct of the prisoner after the death of the deceased, and on the ninth, which relates to the existence of a motive or inducement to the crime, nothing need be said here. But on the
8th article of the moral evidence,—comprehending the death-bed declaration of the deceased, his state of mind, his personal circumstances and other points which prove the possibility or impossibility of voluntary poisoning—a few remarks are required, because an important and little understood part of the practitioner's duty is connected with this branch of the proof.
The question as to the possibility of the poisoning being voluntary is one upon which the medical attendant will be expected to throw some light, and into which he will also naturally inquire for his own satisfaction. In doing so his attention will be turned to circumstances purely moral, which may not only decide that question, but may also criminate a particular individual. His inquiries must there-*
- ↑ Howell's State Trials, xviii.
