1850.

REG. v.

time or manner of their administration. Taking this definition as correct, if time and manner of administration may CLUDERAY. make an otherwise harmless substance a poison; so the time and manner of administration may make a poisonous substance harmless. In the present instance it was not given under such circumstances as to be poisonous, but in the manner of its administration it was perfectly harmless. Where it cannot come in contact with the bodily system, it cannot be a destructive thing; and in this case, that it was impossible that it could so come in contact, the evidence so far as it was given, established. Suppose a person to administer a poison, and with it, by mistake, its antidote, so that the poison was innocuous; it could hardly be contended that he had administered a destructive thing: in that case the poison exists, but its action is neutralized; yet it might be possible to evaporate the antidote, and leave the poison in the body (a). [Alderson, B.-Here you treat the outside as the antidote. Platt, B.-Might the question, whether poison or not, depend upon the strength of the stomach? There was no evidence to show that at any age of the recipient it would have been poison.] The question is, was it poison to a child nine weeks old? He contended upon the

evidence it was not.

Hall, in support of the conviction. He was to show that poison was poison, although it was in a case. This is classed as a poison amongst medical writers. [Wightman, J.That is agreed, but it is contended that the berry is not poison unless it is broken.] Taking the whole of the berry together, it is poison, and administering the berry is like administering arsenic in a capsule which probably would break or otherwise suffer the arsenic to escape in the stomach. [Platt, B.-The question really is whether each and every part of the berry was administered.] The whole

(a) See Christian on Poisons, p. 33.

was passed into the stomach of the child. What difference can it make that the poison was incased? The statute does not say, poison likely to occasion death, but only "poison." [Wilde, C. J.-Is poison, administered by mistake in such a way that it could not operate as poison, within the statute ?] In that case it might be said that to administer a poison which the stomach would immediately reject, would not be administering poison. Is the argument to be that because a man administers too large a dose of poison, he does not administer poison at all? [Wilde, C. J.-Or because he administers too small a dose that it is not poison?] There are certain cases in which large doses would not have any effect whatever (a). The question really is, whether an insoluble capsule covering alters the nature of the substance within. The distinct and comprehensive words in which the statute is expressed, he apprehended, were used for the very purpose of excluding questions of this sort. In one point of view the whole berry was poison, it was classed as a poison generally: the kernel was unquestionably poison, that was administered, and though within the pod, it cannot be said that poison was not administered.

Overend replied.

WILDE, C. J.-The question really is whether the prisoner administered poison with intent to kill. He administered the berry of the cocculus indicus and it is admitted that the kernel of the berry is poison, and it was proved that he administered it with intent to kill; but it also appears that he administered it in such a condition that it could not act as poison; and then the question arises whether a person who administers poison with intent to kill, but from ignorance administers it in such a manner as

(a) See Taylor on Poisons, p. 40.

1850.

REG. v. CLUDERAY.

1850.

REG. v. CLUDERAY.

to be innocuous, is guilty under the statute. We are all of opinion that a man who administers poison which, by reason of some mistake, is ineffective as a poison, is not the less guilty of administering poison because, under the circumstances, it is not likely to produce any ill effect.

ALDERSON, B. added, that in the case suggested of a person administering together two poisons which counteracted each other, there was really no administering of poison at all.

Conviction affirmed.

THE QUEEN against JOHN CHRISTOPHER, JOHN SMITH, AND

GEORGE THORNTON.

EVIDENCE.-DEPOSITIONS.

1850.

Friday, February 1st.

examined be

trate, in the

presence of the prisoner. The

"THE prisoners Christopher, Smith, and Thornton, were indicted at the General Quarter Sessions, holden in and for A witness was the Borough of Liverpool, on the 22nd day of October, fore the magis1849, for felony. When the prisoners were first brought before the magistrate and charged with the felony, the clerk to the witnesses were sworn, examined by the magistrate, and cross-examined by the prisoners, and written minutes the examination and cross-examination were made by the clerk to the magistrates, under the inspection of the in drawing up magistrate.

of

"These minutes were then sent to the office of the clerk

to the magistrates, and there delivered to a clerk named Tasker, who proceeded to write the depositions from the

magistrate af

terwards, at his

own office-the

magistrate and

the prisoner being absent

the depositions put further questions to the witness, and

inserted the

answers. This

statement was

afterwards read

before the ma

gistrate in the presence of the witness and the prisoner, and the witness resworn as to its truth. Held, that the witness at the trial might be asked as to such answers without putting in the written document.

Qy., whether such a document is in law a deposition.

1850.

REG. v.

minutes. The witnesses attended in the office, and in the course of writing the depositions, Tasker put some questions CHRISTOPHER. to each of them for the purpose of rendering the depo

sitions more correct, clear, and complete. The answers given to the questions were inserted in the depositions. The magistrate was not present, nor were the prisoners at the office of the clerk to the magistrates. The depositions having been thus written, the witnesses appeared again before the magistrate, and in the presence of the prisoners were resworn, the depositions were read over to them and a full opportunity was afforded for cross-examination before the depositions were signed by the witnesses.

"Under these circumstances appearing on the trial, the Counsel for the prisoners proposed to ask one of the witnesses for the Crown the following question: 'Did you not tell Mr. Tasker, that you were watching the prisoner Christopher, till a quarter before one o'clock (a)?' This question was material.

"The question had reference to what was said by the witness in answer to some question put by Tasker, as above stated, in the course of writing the depositions; and the witness's answer would, according to the evidence, appear on the depositions. The depositions were not read, or tendered in evidence. The Counsel for the prosecution objected to the question proposed, and the question was overruled by the Court.

"The prisoners were all convicted of felony. Judgment

(a) At the trial the question was put, after the following examination:"When you gave your evidence against the prisoners, before they were committed, was it taken down in writing in open Court ?"

"No."

"Where did you go to, to have your evidence taken ?"
"I went into a room under the Court, to a Mr. Tasker."

"Were the prisoners or magistrate present ?"

"No."

Then followed the question set out in the case.