In a discussion before the medico-legal society of New York, May 2nd, 1892, by the leading American microscopists, the following consensus of opinion was reached. 1. That there was no difficulty in distinguishing between human blood and that of birds, fishes and amphibia generally. 2. That a reliable discrimination could be made by competent observers between human blood and the blood of animals, when the size of the red corpuscles was much smaller than that of man, notably the ox, the horse, the goat, the sheep, the pig and most mammals. 3. That the blood of a dog, the rabbit and the guinea-pig, so nearly resembles human blood in the size or diameter of the red corpuscles, that it was more difficult, and divided opinions exist among observers. Professors Reese, Formad, Reyburn and others, claiming the difference is apparent under instruments of very high power, except in the blood of the guinea-pig and the opposum. Prof. Ewell and others denied that the results were such as to make it certain and absolute when in doubtful cases human life is at stake. 4. All concurred in the safety of the careful microscopist asserting "that the blood examined is consistent with human blood," or that "the microscope may enable us to determine with great certainty, that a blood is not that of a certain animal and is consistent with the blood of man.”1

The better opinion seems to be that the blood of a man cannot be distinguished from that of a woman, or the blood of a child from that of an

1 See Taylor's Mannual of Med. Jur. Eleventh American edition,

p. 279.

adult. Nor can menstrual blood be distinguished from that of the body generally.'

The optical method or spectral analysis applied by a competent person for the discovery of blood, is valuable as a corroborative process, since by it, the minutest trace of blood can be discovered, and there is no case in which blood admits of a chemical examination, in which spectral analysis does not admit of application previous to the chemical tests without interfering with them; but this process indicates no distinction between the blood of man and animals.2

Before closing this chapter, it is proper to repeat that the examination of blood stains should be entrusted to experienced professional men alone, where practicable, and in cases not requiring immediate investigation, the assistance of a chemist or surgeon possessing Provincial reputation should be obtained. The tests are all of them of a delicate nature, requiring judgment and experience to produce reliable results, and should not be left to inexperienced persons to deal with.

1 Taylor, Vol. I. p. 566; Tidy, Vol. I. p. 20.

2 Taylor, Vol. I. pp. 569-570.

CHAPTER IX.

OF DEODANDS. •

One species of homicide per infortunium, which does not arise from the killing of man by man, is occasioned by pure accident, without the default, concurrence or procurement of any human creature. This takes place when the death is occasioned by some beast or inanimate thing. By the common law the instrument which caused death in such cases was forfeited to the Sovereign for pious uses, under the name of a deodand. This singular custom appears to have had its origin in the days of Popery in England, and was designed as an expiation for the souls of such as were snatched away by sudden death. These forfeitures being founded rather in superstition and ignorance than in the principles of sound reason and policy, did not meet with much countenance from the courts in modern days, and at last, by 9 & 10 V. c. 62, were entirely abolished in England, and in Canada by 32-33 V. c. 29, s. 54, and see R. S. C. c. 181, s. 35; 55-56 V. c. 29, s. 964, (D.).

CHAPTER X.

OF FLIGHT AND FORFEITURE.

Formerly it was the duty of coroners to inquire what goods a person found guilty of murder had, and to cause them to be valued and delivered to the township. This part of their duty was abolished by 1 Rich. III. c. 3, except, perhaps, in cases where the accused fled, when it was said the coroner might, as formerly, seize the goods of the fugitive. Now by 55-56 V. c. 29, s. 965, all forfeitures are abolished throughout Canada.

In England the goods and chattels of a felo de se were forfeited to the Crown, until the Act 3334 V. c. 23, was passed, which abolished the forfeitures except on outlawry, and by sec. 44 of the English Coroner's Act of 1887,1 coroners were forbidden to inquire of the goods of such persons who were found guilty of murder or manslaughter.

150-51 V. c. 71.

11.- ADMISSIBILITY OF INQUISITIONS, &c., TAKEN BY

CORONERS..

203

SEC. 1.-COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES.

All persons of sound mind and of sufficient intelligence to understand the nature of an oath, and who believe in its religious obligation, not being the prisoner or the wife or husband of the

1 It will be necessary to remind the professional reader that this work is intended for the practical use of coroners alone, and consequently when it treats of any branch of the general law, no pretence is made to do more than give such portions of that branch as may be found useful to coroners in the discharge of their duties.