A gun fired close to a person may cause death, although merely loaded with wadding or even gunpowder.1

It seems an assailant may occasionally be identified from the flash of a gun on a dark night if the distance is moderate and the smoke not great, but Dr. Taylor appears to consider that the man who declared he recognized a robber through the light produced by a blow on his eye in the dark (!) pulled the long bow.

And Prof. Tidy states that the subjective sensation of flashes of light, called "seeing sparks," produced by a blow on the eye-ball, is not worth serious discussion in this connection.2

In the clearest moonlight a person cannot be recognized at a greater distance than sixteen to seventeen yards, or by star-light, further off than ten to thirteen feet.3

It is possible that a chemical analysis of the projectiles found in gunshot wounds may be of service. Such an analysis may connect the projectiles with metal of a similar nature found on the accused or in his use.

Should it be material to ascertain whether a gunshot wound was received while retreating from or approaching towards a person who fired the shot, an examination of the wound itself will generally afford evidence on the point. If the bullet has entered the front of the body, the person must have been facing his antagonist, unless he was

1 Taylor, Vol. I. pp. 689, 701.

2 Tidy, Vol. I. p. 214.

3 Tidy, Vol. I. p. 212.

struck by a glancing or rebounding ball; and if it has entered the back part, the contrary must have been the case. When the projectile passes through the body, of course there may be a wound in front and behind also; it will then be necessary to find out which is the aperture of entrance and which the aperture of exit. The former is generally three or four times smaller than the latter, the skin is slightly depressed, and, if the muzzle of the piece was close to it, may be blackened or burnt. On the other hand, the orifice of exit is not only larger but more irregular and is never discoloured by the powder or flame, its edges are somewhat everted, and if there is any bleeding, it will most likely be from this aperture.1

Prof. Reese states that the entrance orifice of the ball is livid and depressed, and is larger than the point of exit when the explosion occurs in close contact with the body, but when the piece is fired from a distance the aperture of entrance is always smaller than that of exit; and that after some days the contused margins of the entrance wound, slough away, thereby enlarging the orifice, while those of the exit partially adhere, causing the latter wounds to appear smaller than the former.2

To determine the direction a ball came from with regard to the person struck, is occasionally more difficult. If the piece was fired upwards, the course of the ball through the body may still be downwards, owing to its striking a bone or other hard substance, and vice versa. And if fired on a

level with the orifice of entrance, the course of the ball may also be deceptive from similar reasons.

The fact of the aperture of exit being immediately opposite that of entrance, does not necessarily prove the shot passed directly through the part struck, for balls have been known to enter the front of the head and come out at the back, without penetrating the bone, their course having been round the skull under the skin merely.1 In one case on record the ball struck the upper part of the abdomen, and passed out at the back nearly opposite, without traversing the abdominal cavity. It had deflected beneath the skin. This deflection of balls is most often met with when they strike obliquely a curved surface.2

The cicatrix of a wound in the case of a person who has done growing is smaller than the wound that caused it, but in the case of a wound on a child, it increases in size as the body grows.3

When the body of an individual who is suspected to have died from external violence, is not seen until some time after dissolution, the injuries will appear to be of a much more aggravated nature than they ought to be considered by the medical jurist.*

1 A case of the nature referred to in the text was reported in a Toronto paper as follows: "ANOTHER SHOOTING ACCIDENT. A few days ago, a boy, who refused to give his name, or that of any of the parties concerned, came to Dr. Fisher's office to have a pistol bullet taken out of his head. It was found on examining the wound that the bullet had cut the skin on the left side of the head just above the ear, and that, failing to penetrate the skull, it had traversed the scalp and lodged between the skull and the skin, nearly opposite the place where the skin was first broken. The bullet was removed without any difficulty. On being asked how the shooting took place, the boy refused to give any particulars further than that it was accidental." Tidy, Vol. I. p. 162.

"Taylor, Vol. I. p. 689.

$ Tidy, Vol. I. p. 162.

Taylor; Devergie; Beck.

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE HYDROSTATIC TEST.

This test, although now exploded as a reliable one, for the purpose of proving the live birth of infants, is still one which may afford important corroborative evidence on the subject, and its use therefore should not be neglected.

The mode of performing the hydrostatic test is as follows:

The lungs are removed from the chest in connection with the trachea and bronchi, and placed on the surface of water, free from salt or other ingredient which would increase its specific gravity -pure distilled or river water is recommended.1 If they sink, notice whether rapidly or slowly. Then try if each lung will sink separately; cut them into several small pieces, and see if these

1 Prof. Tidy says use a large vessel filled (by preference) with rain water. And his directions are: "Remove the lungs and heart entire, securing all the larger vessels to prevent loss of blood." And he gives a further test after making the ones mentioned in the text, namely: Each piece of lung is to be wrapped in a cloth, the cloth then to be placed on the floor, and covered with a piece of board and pressure applied by a person standing on the board for a few minutes. The several pieces, after this treatment, are again to be tested whether they sink or float. If the lungs float by all these tests there is strong presumptive evidence in favour of respiration, and conversely if they sink there is strong presumptive evidence in favour of non-respiration. He also says: Note whether any morbid products (tubercle, etc.), or foreign substances (meconium, mucous, etc.), are present in the air-cells, and passages(Tidy, Vol. I. pp. 264, 265). Taylor thinks there is no good reason for placing the lungs in the water with the heart and thymus gland attached, as, he says, some have recommended. Taylor, Vol. II. p. 331].

pieces float or sink. If the lungs float, note if they float high above the surface, or at or below the level of the water, and see if the buoyancy is due to the lungs generally, or only to the state of particular parts. By considering the general result of these experiments, an inference may be drawn as to whether respiration has taken place at all, or partially, or perfectly.1

While performing this test, the remarks regarding it in Chapter III. s. 3, should not be lost sight of.

1Taylor, Vol. II. p. 330.

B.C.-12