in that language in London, exulting in the recent assassination or the Czar of Russia, and commending the murder as an example to all revolutionists throughout the world; and at the trial the jury were directed that if they thought that by the publication of the article the prisoner intended to encourage and did encourage or endeavor to persuade any person to murder any other person, whether a subject of Her Majesty or not, and whether within the Queen's dominions or not, and that such encouragement and endeavoring to persuade was the natural and reasonable effect of the article, they should find him guilty. This direction was held correct. (1) 235. Accessory after the fact to murder.--Every one is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to imprisonment for life, who is an accessory after the fact to murder. R.S.C., c. 162, s. 4. For article 236, see ante p. 156. 237. Alding and abetting suicide.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who counsels or procures any person to commit suicide, actually committed in consequence of such counselling or procurement, or who aids or abets any person in the commission of suicide. In reference to this subject the English Commissioners have the following remark : :- 46 By the present law suicide is murder; and a person who assists another to commit suicide is an accessory before the fact to murder and liable to capital punishment. It appears to us that the abetment of suicide and attempts to commit suicide ought to be made specific offences. We provide for this in sections 183 and 184. (Identical with our articles 237 and 238.) 99 288. Attempt to commit suicide.-Every one who attempts to commit suicide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable te two years' imprisonment. Opposite to the section of the English Draft Code corresponding with this article the Royal Commissioners have the following note: 66 This is the existing law. See Reg., v. Burgess, L. & C. 258. " 239. Neglecting to obtain assistance in childbirth.-Every woman is guilty of an indictable offence who, with either of the intents hereinafter mentioned, being with child and being about to be delivered, neglects to provide reasonable assistance in her delivery, if the child is permanently injured thereby, or dies, either just before, or during, or shortly after birth, unless she proves that such death or permanent injury was not caused by such neglect, or by any wrongful act to which she was a party, and is liable to the following punishment: (a.) If the intent of such neglect be that the child shall not live, to imprisonment for life; (b.) If the intent of such neglect be to conceal the fact of her having had a child, to imprisonment for seven years. Opposite to sections 185 and 186 af the English Draft Code, which correspond with this article, the Royal Commissioners have the following note : (1) R. v. Most, 7 Q. B. D. 244; 50 L. J. (M. C.) 113. 64 'These are new. Women found guilty of concealment of birth, under the existing law, (1) have in most cases been really guilty of the acts made substantial offences by these sections. (Article 239) These sections, (article 239,) would also often afford a means for punishing child murder, where there would be a practical difficulty in obtaining a conviction for that offence." In their report the Royal Commissioners say further : "The subject of child murder is one as to which the existing law seems to require alteration At present, no distinction is made between the murder of a new-born infant, by its mother, and the murder of an adult. Practically this severity defeats itself, and offences, which are really cases of child-murder, are often treated as cases of concealment of birth simply. The Bill proposed to meet this by an enactment which, (as amended by the Attorney General), would have enabled a jury to convict of manslaughter, instead of murder, a woman who caused her new-born child's death by an act done when her power of self-control was greatly weakened. On the whole, we have preferred to substitute for it the provisions contained in sections 185 and 186," (Article 239.) 240. Concealing dead body of child.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence, and liable to two years' imprisonment, who disposes of the dead body of any child in any manner, with intent to conceal the fact that its mother was delivered of it, whether the child died before, or during, or after birth. R.S.C., c. 162, s. 49. On a trial for child murder, the jury, if they acquit on the charge of murder, may, under article 714, post,-if the evidence warrants it,-convict the accused of concealment of birth. It was held, in one case that a foetus not bigger than a man's finger, but having the shape of a child, was a child within the meaning of the English statute against concealment of birth. (2) Where a woman was delivered of a child whose dead body was found in a bed amongst the feathers, but there was no evidence to shew who put it there, and it appeared that the mother had sent for a surgeon when she was confined, and had prepared clothes for the child, the judge directed an acquittal on the charge of endeavoring to conceal the birth. (3) In another case the mother caused the body of her child to be secretly buried with a view to conceal its birth, and although she had previously allowed the birth to be known to some persons, it was held that she might be convicted of the concealment. (4) The mere denial of the birth is not sufficient to convict. There must be proof of some act of disposal of the body after the child's death. (5) It was held by a majority of the judges, that the putting of the child's dead body between a bed and the mattress, or under a bolster, on which the accused lay her head, was a sufficient disposal of it to constitute the offence. (6) In order to convict a woman of attempting to conceal the birth of her child it of which she was delivered. (7) has been held that a dead body must be found and identified as that of the child (1) Meaning the law as now contained in Article 240. (2) R. v. Colmer, 9 Cox 506. (3) R. v. Higley, 4 C. & P. 566. (4) R. v. Douglas, 1 Moo. C. C. 480. (5) R. v. Turner, 8 C. & P. 755. (6) R. v. Goldthorpe, 2 Moo. C. C. 244; C. & Mar. 335; R. v. Perry, Dears 471; 24 L. J. (M. C.) 137. (7) R. v. Williams, 11 Cox, 684; Arch. Cr. Pl. & Ev. 21 Ed. 828, 829. A. placed the dead body of a child of which she had been delivered between a trunk and the wall of a room in which she lived alone. Being charged with having had a child she at first denied it, but being pressed she pointed out where the body was. Held, that she might be convicted of concealing the birth of the child. (1) Ꮲ Ꭺ Ꭱ Ꭲ XIX. BODILY INJURIES, AND ACTS AND OMISSIONS 241. Wounding with intent.—Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life who, with intent to maim, disfigure or disable any person, or to do some other grievous bodily harm to any person, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person, unlawfully by any means wounds or causes any grievous bodily harm to any person, or shoots at any person, or, by drawing a trigger, or in any other manner, attempts to discharge any kind of loaded arms at any person. R.S.C., c. 162, s. 13. It will be sufficient to warrant a conviction under this article if it be proved that the defendant wounded, or caused grievous bodily harm to, or shot at, etc., any person with intent to maim, disfigure, or disable any person, etc., so that if A. struck at B. but, C. interposing, received the blow, and was wounded, A. could be convicted of wounding C. with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. We have already noticed, under article 232, ante, the meaning of the word “wounds," and that wounds may be incised, punctured, contused or lacerated wounds. An incised wound is commonly called a "cut," and is generally produced by a weapon with a sharp edge, as a knife, a sword, a scythe, scissors, etc.; but some clean sharp cuts and ugly gaping wounds have been known to be produced with a square poker, or even with the fist or a blunt body, when it strikes a sharp bony ridge, such as that of the eyebrow, the cheek bone, etc. Punctured wounds are caused by the penetration of some pointed weapon, or anything with a sharp point, such as a dagger, a pen-knife, a poniard, a piece of broken glass, a tobacco pipe, scissor points, arrows, darts, sharp stones, etc. These wounds are sometimes dangerous and troublesome, from the fact that the external wound may heal over too soon, and keep the pus confined, or injury may be done to nerves and blood vessels in the deeper parts of the wound. An instance, given by medical writers, of the dangerous nature of a punctured wound, is that of a clockmaker who, while picking his ear with the wire stem of a clock pendulum, was struck on the elbow by a drunken man who thus caused the wire to pass through his ear into the brain, and occasionied his death A contused wound is one in which there is considerable bruising, with discoloration of the surrounding skin, caused by effusion of blood, from small ruptured vessels into the surrounding cellular membrane, or sub-cutaneous tissue. The change of color is produced by the oxidation of the effused blood; (1) R. v. Piché, 30 U. C. C. P. 409; Bur. Dig. Cr. L. 228. "black eye." and when it takes place near the eye, it is popularly called a After from eighteen to twenty-four hours from the commencement of the discoloration the black or dark-blue coloring begins to grow lighter, and charges gradually, from day to day, passing through different shades of green, yellow, lemon, etc., until it completely disappears. When the blood is effused in quantity, as for example by the blow of a cricket-ball, such a swelling is called hamatoma, or blood tumor. The shape of a bruise may sometimes be an important item of evidence. Starkie states that on one occasion, in a case of attempt to murder, the prosecutor had, in his own defence, struck his assailant with a house door-key, and the marks of contusion produced by the wards of this key became the chief means of the would-be murderer's identification and conviction. In some cases of contused wounds it may take two or three days for the skin to appear discolored or bruised; and the time taken for the completion of these changes of color, as well as for the absorption of the blood, may vary from a few days to some weeks. Lacerated wounds are torn and ragged ones, such as are produced by sawing movements of blunt or jagged instruments, as for example, stones, glass, earthenware, shots from fire-arms, etc. These wounds are generally dangerous, from often containing dirt and foreign bodies, such as fragments of wadding, powder, etc., and because they can only heal by granulation and suppuration, and not by primary union or adhesion. Some wounds are of a mixed character. When a wound is produced with a knife, for instance, one part may be cleanly cut or incised, and another may be hacked or lacerated, and a different force or direction being given to the point of the knife may cause the wound to be at one end a punctured or pointed one. (1) 242. Wounding.-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment who unlawfully wounds or inflicts any grievous bodily harm upon any other person, either with or without any weapon or instrument. R.S.C., c. 162, s. 14. See comments under previous article and under article 232, ante. 243. Shooting at Her Majesty's vessels, and wounding public officers, on duty. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment who wilfully (a) shoots at any vessel belonging to Her Majesty or in the service of Canada; or of his duty maims or wounds any public officer engaged in the execution s. 213; c. 34, s. 99. or any person acting in aid of such officer. R.S.C., c. 32, "Public officer" is defined by article 3 (w) as " Any Inland Revenue or customs officer, officer of the army, navy, marine, militia, North-west mounted police, or other officer engaged in enforcing the laws relating to the revenue, customs, trade or navigation of Canada.' 244. Disabling or drugging with intent to commit an indictable offence. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life and to be whipped, who with intent thereby (1) Woodman & T. For. Med. 1047, 1048. to enable himself or any other person to commit, or with intent thereby to assist any other person in committing any indictable offence: (a.) by any means whatsoever, attempts to choke, suffocate or strangle any other person, or by any means calculated to choke, suffocate or strangle, attempts to render any other person insensible, unconscious or incapable of resistance; or (b.) unlawfully applies or administers to, or causes to be taken by, or attempts to apply or administer to, or attempts or causes to be administered to or taken by, any person, any chloroform, laudanum or other stupefying or overpowering drug, matter or thing. R.S.C., c. 162, ss. 15 and 16. See comments under article 232, ante, p. 161. 245. Administering poison-Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to fourteen years' imprisonment who unlawfully administers to, or causes to be administered to or taken by any other person, any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm. R.S.C., c. 162, s. 17. 246. Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to three years' imprisonment who unlawfully administers to, or causes to be administered to or taken by, any other person, any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, with intent to injure, aggrieve or annoy such person. R.S C., c. 162, s. 18. See comments under article 232, ante. If the poison or destructive or noxious thing is administered merely with intent to injure aggrieve or annoy, which in itself would be punishable under article 246, yet if it does in fact endanger the life of or inflict grievous bodily harm upon the person to whom it is administered it would amount to the higher offence covered by and punishable under Article 245. (1) To warrant a conviction under article 246, it must be proved that the defendant intended the administration of the poison, elc., to injure, aggrieve or annoy the prosecutor. (2) Whether the thing is a noxious thing or not may depend upon the quantity administered, some drugs being innoxious in small, and noxious in large quantities. Thus, where the prisoner was indicted under sec. 24 of 24 and 25 Vic., c. 100, (which corresponds with the above article 246), and the evidence was that he had administered cantharides to the prosecutrix, that a large dose of cantharides is poisonous, but that the quantity which he administered was insufficient to produce any effect upon the human system, it was held, by Cockburn, C. J., and Hawkins, J., that the prisoner could not be convicted of administering a "destructive and noxious thing," notwithstanding that he administered it with intent to injure and annoy. (3) In Wilkins case, supra, the defendant had administered cantharides to a woman with intent to excite her sexual passion and desire, in order that he (1) Tulley v. Corrie, 10 Cox, 640. (2) R. v. Wilkins, L. & C. 89; 31 L. J. (M. C.) 72. (3) R. v. Hennah, 13 Cox, 547. See comments under article 272, post. |