1. =Hemorrhage.=—This may act by producing syncope. But the amount of

the hemorrhage may not be sufficient for this result, and still cause death by disturbing the function of the organ into which it is effused, as in the brain or in the pleural or pericardial cavities. The blood here acts mechanically. Blood in the trachea may also kill mechanically by causing asphyxia. The _amount_ of hemorrhage required to produce syncope varies under a variety of circumstances. Less is required in the very young, the aged, and the diseased, also less in women than in men. Young infants may die from hemorrhage from very slight wounds, even from the application of a leech or the lancing of the gums. A sudden loss of blood is much more serious than an equal amount lost slowly. This is the reason that the wound of an artery is more serious and more rapidly fatal than a similar loss of blood from other sources. It is hard to specify the absolute quantity which must be lost in order to cause death by syncope. The total blood in the body is about one-thirteenth of the weight of the body, making the total amount of blood weigh about twelve pounds. Of this, about one-fourth is in the heart, lungs, and large blood-vessels. According to Watson, the loss of an amount varying from five to eight pounds is enough to be fatal to an adult. But less is enough to prove fatal in many cases, as the rapidity of the loss of blood and the age, sex, and bodily condition of the wounded person affect the amount necessary. Though death from a small artery is slower than that from a large one, yet it may occur in time, as shown in the instance quoted by Taylor,[626] where a man bled to death in thirty-eight hours from the wound of an intercostal artery. Thus, too, a wound of the branches of the external carotid artery is often enough to cause death, and a wound in a vascular part may cause death from hemorrhage, though no vessel of any size be divided. INTERNAL HEMORRHAGE may be fatal from mechanical interference with the function of an organ, as well as from syncope. Thus we may have death from syncope due to hemorrhage into the peritoneal cavity or, after contusions, into the intercellular spaces and the cavity due to the blow, into which several pounds of blood may be extravasated. Internal hemorrhage is most fatal when due to the rupture of a viscus such as the heart, lungs, liver, kidney. Taylor[627] cites a case of a man run over and brought to Guy’s Hospital in November, 1864. He had pain in the back, but there were no symptoms or marks of severe injury. He left the hospital and walked home, where he was found dead in bed a few hours later. His abdomen contained a large amount of blood from the rupture of a kidney. After severe flagellation blood may be effused in large quantity beneath the skin and between the muscles, which is just as fatal as if it had flowed externally from a wound. In fact, if the injuries are numerous the loss of much less blood is enough to prove fatal, the element of shock here assisting that of hemorrhage. _How are we to ascertain whether a person has died from hemorrhage?_ This may be more difficult in the case of an open wound, for the body may have been moved from the spot where it lay after the wound was received, and the blood on the body, clothes, and surrounding objects may have been removed. Then the case may be presumptive only, but we may arrive at a definite conclusion by attention to the following points: If the wound was in a very vascular part and of some size, or if a large vessel or many moderately large vessels were divided and the vessels, especially the veins in the neighborhood, are empty, then we may be quite sure of death from hemorrhage. If there is no disease found which could be rapidly fatal the case is still stronger. The body should be pallid after fatal hemorrhage, but the same may be the case from death from other causes. In case the body and surrounding objects have not been disturbed, then the amount of clotted blood in the wound, on the body and clothes, and about the body, taken in connection with the foregoing points, can leave no doubt. We should remember, however, that not all the blood about the body was necessarily effused during life, but a little hemorrhage may have occurred after death while the body was still warm and the blood fluid, _i.e._, during the first four, eight, or ten hours. But the amount thus lost is small. In cases of death from internal hemorrhage we do not have so much difficulty in pronouncing an opinion, as by post-mortem examination we can determine the amount of the hemorrhage. We can judge, too, from its position, whether it has acted mechanically to interfere with a vital function, and has thus caused death, or whether the latter was due to syncope from the quantity lost. =2. Severe mechanical injury of a vital organ=, such as crushing of the heart, lungs, brain, etc. This crushing may be accompanied by hemorrhage, but death may be more immediate than the hemorrhage would account for. The mechanical injury done to the vital centres in the medulla by the act of pithing is the direct cause of the sudden death which follows it. Exceptionally slight violence to a vital organ is fatal, but this may be better explained by attributing it to shock. =3. Shock.=—An injury is often apparently not enough to account for the fatal result so speedily. The marks of external injury may fail entirely or be very trifling. Thus more than once persons have died in railway collisions with no external marks of violence. So, too, a blow on the upper abdomen, on the “pit of the stomach,” has been rapidly fatal without any visible injury to the viscera. Death is attributed to the effect on the cardiac plexus, and there may be no marks externally or only very superficial ones. In Reg. _v._ Slane and Others (Durham Wint. Ass., 1872), quoted by Taylor,[628] the deceased was proved to have sustained severe injuries to the abdomen by kicks, etc., but there were no marks of bruises. All organs were found healthy on post-mortem examination, but the injured man died in twenty minutes. Death was attributed to shock and the prisoners were convicted of murder. Death from concussion of the brain is another example of death from shock. This may occur with only a bruise on the scalp and with no intracranial hemorrhage or laceration of the brain. The medical witness should be cautious in the above classes of cases in giving evidence, as the defence may rely upon the absence of any visible signs of mortal injury to prove that no injury was done, a principle fundamentally wrong. Also a _number of injuries_, no one of which alone could be the direct cause of death, may cause death on the spot or very soon afterward. Death in such cases, where there is no large effusion under the skin, is referred to exhaustion, which, however, is merely another term for shock. Such cases are exemplified by prize-fighters who, during or after the fight, become collapsed and die of exhaustion. Having sustained numerous blows on the body during the many rounds, the body presents the marks of various bruises, but there may be nothing else to explain the sudden death. No one injury or bruise is mortal, and yet, when the deceased was previously sound and in good health, death must be referred directly to the multiple injuries received in the fight. We have already stated above that if the injuries are numerous, the loss of a smaller amount of blood may be fatal. We see, therefore, that there is not always a specific and visible “mortal” injury to account for death. This is a well-known medical fact, but it does not accord with the erroneous popular prejudice that no one can die from violence without some one visible wound which is mortal. In other words, the non-professional mind leaves out of account the idea of shock, only regarding material injury and not functional disturbance. If the circumstances accompanying death are unknown, it is well to be cautious. But if the deceased was in ordinary health and vigor and there was no morbid cause to account for the sudden death, we need not hesitate to refer death to the multiple injuries. II. WAS THE WOUND THE CAUSE OF DEATH NECESSARILY? This brings up a number of interesting questions to be considered. In medical jurisprudence there is probably no condition so common as that the injury is admitted, but death is attributed to some other cause. Thus _if there are several wounds_ it may be hard to decide on the relative degree of mortality of any particular one, so as to be able to say that death was directly or necessarily due to this or that one. The defence may plead that death was not necessarily due to the particular wound attributed to the prisoner. This brings up the question— =Which of two or more Wounds was the Cause of Death?= No general rule can be laid down for all cases, but each case must be judged by itself. Another way of putting the question is: “_Which of two or more wounds was mortal?_” The questions are not quite synonymous, for two or more of the wounds might be “mortal” but not equally the cause of death. In fact, as we have already seen, no one of the wounds if they are multiple may be of itself mortal, but taken together they are so. Consequently we will suppose that there are but two wounds, and not multiple ones, and the question remains which of these wounds was the cause of death. A wound may be said to be of itself mortal when it is the cause of death directly or indirectly in spite of the best medical assistance. In some continental states mortal wounds are divided into two classes, those absolutely and those conditionally mortal, the former including those in which the best medical assistance is at hand, sent for or timely rendered without everting the result. The mortal result in the second class is conditional on want of treatment, improper treatment, or accidental circumstances. As Taylor says, it is better to look at the effect of the wound and the intent of the assailant, as is done in English law, rather than at accidental relations of the wound. To return to the question, we can readily imagine that a man may receive two wounds at different times or from different persons, and die after the second wound. Taylor[629] mentions the following case in which the question arose as to which of two injuries caused death: In Reg. _v._ Foreman (C.C.C. February, 1873) the prisoner had struck the deceased some severe blows on the head. A fortnight later, having partially recovered, another man gave him some severe blows on the head. A fortnight later still he had left hemiplegia, and died a few days later of a large abscess in the brain. The question arose which set of blows had been the cause of the abscess. The prisoner, the first assailant, was acquitted, as the deceased had had no serious symptoms until the second assault, and there was no satisfactory medical evidence as to the relation of the two assaults to the abscess formation. The same author also supposes the following case: A man having received a gunshot wound of the shoulder is doing well, when in another quarrel he receives a penetrating stab-wound of the thorax and abdomen. He dies after lingering for a time, under the effects of these wounds. If the wound of the shoulder could be proven to be the cause of death, the second assailant could not be convicted of manslaughter, and so too with the first assailant if it could be shown that the victim died of the stab-wound. It might be possible for a surgeon to decide the question definitely at once if death occurred soon after the stab, which was found to have penetrated the heart, a large blood-vessel, or one of the viscera; or, on the other hand, if the stab-wound was found to be superficial and not penetrating, and the wound in the shoulder had suppurated and caused septicæmia. In either or any case, everything would depend upon the evidence furnished by the medical witness. His knowledge and judgment are required to distinguish the guilty from the innocent. Again, sometimes death may appear to be equally the result of either or both wounds, in which case, as far as the medical evidence goes, both assailants would be liable to the charge of manslaughter. Or the second wound may be accidental or suicidal, and again the question would arise as to the cause of death. A case illustrating this is told by Taylor[630] substantially as follows: A grocer’s assistant pursued a thief, who had stolen from a cart, into a coal-shed, where he was stabbed twice in the abdomen. The larger wound suppurated, the smaller wound healed up, and the man died of peritonitis. On post-mortem examination the suppurating wound was found not to involve a vital part, while the small healed wound had wounded the liver and gall bladder and had set up the fatal peritonitis. The large suppurating wound had apparently been inflicted purposely; the fatal wound, directed upward and backward, might have been accidental by the deceased rushing upon the knife held more or less in self-defence. The case never came to trial, as the assailant was never found, but it can be readily imagined what complications might have arisen. Furthermore, the wounded person may have taken poison or been subsequently ill-treated, and he may have died from these causes rather than the injury. But the question arises as to whether the wound was necessarily the cause of death. Here, in order to exculpate the assailant, the supervening disease or maltreatment must be such as to account for sudden or rapid death under the symptoms which actually preceded death. =Was Death Due to Natural Causes?= Again, the injury may be admitted, but it may be claimed that death is due to natural causes. It is not unusual for wounded persons to die from natural causes, though the case may appear otherwise to laymen. This is often seen with suicidal wounds, especially those inflicted during the delirium of a disease, or the disease may supervene later and cause death without relation to the wound. Where the wound was inflicted by another, accurate discrimination is especially important in order to save the accused from imprisonment under false accusation and consequent loss of character. A careful examination is the only way to determine such cases, which depend therefore on the medical testimony. Again, the question may arise as between DEATH FROM WOUNDS OR LATENT DISEASE, the wound perhaps being admitted, but death being attributed to latent disease. Here a close attention to symptoms and a careful post-mortem examination can alone decide. A man may die from the rupture of an aneurism, from an apoplexy or some other morbid condition after receiving a severe wound. Or a man with a hernia may receive a blow upon it causing a rupture of the contained intestine followed by peritonitis and death, or the recipient of a blow may have a calculus in the kidney which may perforate a blood-vessel or the kidney tissue and set up a fatal hemorrhage as the result of a blow. Thus, medically speaking, the result of the injury is unusual and unexpected, and due to an abnormal or unhealthy state of body of the wounded person. If it can be clearly shown by the medical testimony that death was due to the above or any other latent diseases, the responsibility of the assailant may be lessened or removed. The law looks to this point and is lenient in its punishment in the absence of malice on the part of the assailant. The crime is still manslaughter and may even be murder if the assailant was actuated by malice and the abnormal or unhealthy state of the body of the victim was taken advantage of. Generally there is no intention of murder, but the nature of the wound and the means of infliction will help to show this, which is for the jury rather than the medical witness to decide. There is less ground for mitigation of the punishment if the assailant was aware of the peculiar condition of the wounded person, especially in the case of those notoriously ill or of pregnant women. Closely allied with this subject are those rare cases where ABNORMAL ANATOMICAL CONDITIONS, such as a thin skull or brittle bones, cause a slight injury to be followed by unexpected and untoward results, not to be looked for in the average individual. In such cases the evidence of the abnormal condition furnished by the medical witness may diminish the responsibility and mitigate the punishment. Furthermore, the responsibility of the assailant may not be altogether removed, for the question naturally arises, Was death accelerated by the wound? This depends upon the circumstances in each case upon which the medical witness must base his opinion. Maliciously accelerating the death of another is regarded as criminal on the principle that that which accelerates causes. The following cases are quoted from Taylor[631] to illustrate the above distinctions. In Reg. _v._ Timms (Oxford Lent Ass., 1870) the deceased had been struck on the head by the accused with a hatchet, from which injury he had partly recovered under treatment in twelve days. But six weeks later he was seized with inflammation of the brain, with convulsions, and died. At the autopsy disease of the kidneys was found, and death was referred to this and the inflammation of the brain due to the blows. The prisoner was convicted after the judge had charged the jury that it was manslaughter if they believed that the blows conduced in part to the death of the deceased. In the following cases there was no connection between the violence and the cause of death. A man struck his father on the head with a hammer and was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, as the injury did not appear serious. The father thought the punishment too little, became much excited, and was hemiplegic six days after the wound was inflicted and died three days later. No injury of the brain was found under a fracture of the inner table at the site of the blow, but a large clot was found in the lateral ventricle which, in the opinion of the medical witnesses, was not dependent on the blow, and the prisoner was acquitted (see Reg. _v._ Saxon, Lancashire Sum. Ass., 1884). Also in Reg. _v._ Hodgson (Leeds Sum. Ass., 1876) the prisoner had struck his wife with a belt, a short time after which she fell back and died suddenly. The cause of death was found to be heart disease, and the blow not being causative in producing the fatal result, the prisoner was acquitted. Or again in Reg. _v._ Thompson (Liverpool Sum. Ass., 1876): The prisoner had stabbed his wife in the cheek. The wound was severe but not mortal. Two days later she was delivered of a child in the infirmary to which she was taken. She died nine days later of puerperal fever. The prisoner was acquitted on the charge of murder, as there was no necessary connection between the wound and the puerperal fever. Acquittals have taken place in cases of death occasioned by terror or dread of impending danger produced by acts of violence, as in the case of Reg. _v._ Heany (Gloucester Lent Ass., 1875). Here the prisoner in an altercation with his wife, who was suffering from cancer, held up a knife in a threatening manner, but did not touch her. This gave her a shock; she died two days later from fright. As there was no distinct proof that death was accelerated by this act, the prisoner was acquitted of the charge of murder. Taylor[632] found among a large number of cases occurring in England during twenty years that the latent causes of death, as registered in wounded persons, were chiefly inflammation of the thoracic or abdominal viscera, apoplexy, diseases of the heart and large blood-vessels, phthisis, ruptures of the stomach and bowels from disease, internal strangulation, and the rupture of deep-seated abscesses. Sometimes the person was in good health up to the time of injury, while in other cases there was merely a slight indisposition. It was only by carefulness on the part of the medical experts that the true cause of death was ascertained. Again, it may be claimed that DEATH was not necessarily the result of the wound and was AVOIDABLE BY GOOD MEDICAL TREATMENT. There are many cases of wounds not mortal with proper and skilled treatment which might become so by improper treatment. They may thus become directly mortal by interfering with a source of hemorrhage which had been arrested, or secondarily mortal by infection of the wound by meddlesome treatment. It would depend on the medical witnesses to determine whether and how far the treatment had been responsible for the fatal result. If the wound is not of itself mortal and it has only become so from improper treatment, this should be a mitigating circumstance in favor of the accused. Medically speaking, we can seldom make the sharp distinction which Lord Hale did legally between a wound becoming mortal from improper treatment and one in which improper treatment causes death irrespective of the wound. In case of a slight wound this distinction might be possible, but not so in case of severe wounds. Also there would probably be no conviction, as far as the medical evidence is concerned, if the wound was only mortal in consequence of improper treatment and not mortal as its usual and probable result. This may naturally introduce the question of the COMPARATIVE SKILL IN TREATMENT. If death is entirely or partly due to a wound the responsibility of an assailant is not altered by unskilful treatment. The entire question of the relation of the wound to the fatal result and the effect on this result of the treatment employed is left to be determined by the medical experts, and in its solution great care and judgment must be used. Although a given fatal wound might not have caused death under the best possible treatment and surroundings, yet, according to the above rule, the assailant is held responsible as long as the fatal result is due partly, at least, to the wound. Therefore we see the responsibility of the surgeon not only for the life of his patient, but also for that of the prisoner. He should, therefore, not deviate from the ordinary and most accepted practice in such cases, as any such deviation is taken hold of by the counsel for the defence. In fact, every point of the treatment is subjected to criticism. In a lacerated wound of the foot, if death occurs from tetanus, it may be claimed that death would not have occurred if the foot had been amputated, or, if the foot were amputated and death followed, it may be claimed that amputation was unnecessary and was the cause of death. The surgeon should, therefore, be able to give the best reasons for every step of treatment. Again, it may be claimed that DEATH was not a necessary result of the wound and WAS AVOIDABLE BUT FOR IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLECT on the part of the wounded person. A man after being wounded may refuse to receive medical assistance, or, after receiving it, may disobey instructions or refuse to submit to an operation proposed. Thus with a compound depressed fracture of the skull the patient may either refuse to see a surgeon, or he may refuse to submit to an operation proposed, or he may with or without operation disobey the instructions as to diet and quiet, and eat or drink heavily and refuse to go to bed. Such a case we can readily imagine might die of meningitis, etc. If the symptoms of a wound are unfavorable from the start, or if the wound of itself is likely to prove mortal, the responsibility of the assailant is unmitigated by imprudence or neglect of medical assistance by the wounded person. This is not allowed as mitigatory, as a sane man is a free agent and is not obliged to call in or submit to medical treatment. Moreover, a medical witness in many cases could not swear that an operation or other plan of treatment would certainly save life. Thus an amputation of the leg for wound of the foot causing tetanus is by no means a certain means of cure. But we can readily imagine a case where the refusal to submit to the treatment proposed might be an important element in causing death. Thus in a compound depressed fracture of the skull with compression, the medical witnesses would agree that the operation would in all probability save life. This fact would probably be only mitigatory in diminishing the penalty, and, as stated above, would not secure acquittal. But it is none the less important for the medical witness to bear these facts in mind and bring out the facts and conclusions clearly in his testimony. DEATH FOLLOWING SLIGHT PERSONAL INJURIES.—Here again the claim might apparently be justified that death was not necessarily due to the trifling injury. And in reality there is commonly some unhealthy state of the body to explain such an unexpected result. When the disease accounting for this unhealthy state of the body is in some other part than the injury, an examination with ordinary care will explain the case. But if the disease and injury are located in the same part, especially in the head, the case is more perplexing, but may be cleared up by careful and thorough examination. Also the usual results of such an injury should be considered, and whether the disease would be a usual result of the injury, or whether the sum total of the pathological conditions found would be accounted for by the violence. It should be remembered that the presence of chronic disease is no excuse. Thus Taylor[633] cites the case of Reg. _v._ Hapley (Lewes Aut. Ass., 1860), where a boy with chronic disease of the brain suffered from no unusual symptom until he received a severe flogging, which was followed by death in less than three hours. The same author mentions also the following case to show that fatal results may follow very slight and trivial blows. Annan[634] tells of a healthy four-year-old girl who received a slight blow from the shaft of a wheelbarrow on the skin about three inches below the knee. There was even no external mark of violence, and the injury was thought to be so slight as not to require treatment. There was pain, however, which increased on the following day, marked constitutional symptoms appeared, and the child died on the fourth day. Even to the punishment inflicted by schoolmasters death has been imputed. When DEATH occurs FROM WOUNDS AFTER LONG PERIODS the injury may be admitted, but it may be claimed that death was not necessarily due to the wound. Medically speaking, death is just as much the result of the injury as if it occurred on the spot. Of course, death must be clearly traceable to the usual and probable results of the injury, and not be dependent on any other cause. An examination of the wounded part and of the whole body will enable the medical witness to determine the cause of death and whether it is clearly traceable to the injury. A doubt on this point may lead to acquittal. Certain forms of wounds or wounds in certain localities are especially liable to end fatally after a long delay, but as the direct result of the wound. These are wounds of the head and of the spine. As to the first class, the injured person may apparently recover and be doing well, when he may suddenly die from a cerebral abscess, for instance. This is the result of the injury, but remains a longer or shorter time latent. In wounds of the spine the patient is generally paralyzed below the point of fracture, but is apparently in good health. In a longer or shorter time he may die of a pneumonia, cystitis, or bedsores, which are the known and regular consequences of the injury or injured condition. Astley Cooper cites the case of a man who was injured on the head and died two years later from the effects of the injury, as was clearly made out by the continuance of brain symptoms during the entire period. An interval of eleven years occurred in another head injury between the injury and the fatal result. The first result of the injury was concussion of the brain, and the case is mentioned by Hoffbauer.[635] This long interval is unusual. There is a rule in English law by which the assailant cannot be indicted for murder if the victim of the assault lives a year and a day. Practically this makes little difference, as nearly all cases would die within that time; but the principle is wrong as looked at from the medical standpoint. The protracted cases concern, as above stated, mostly injuries of the head, spine, and chest, among which there are some cases, like the examples cited, where, according to English law, justice would fail to be done. III. WAS A WOUND THE CAUSE OF DEATH SECONDARILY? A wound is secondarily the cause of death when the victim, having recovered from the first ill effects, dies from some wound disease or accident or from a surgical operation rendered necessary in the proper treatment of the wound. There may be much difficulty in establishing the proof of death from a wound by means of secondary causes, for, 1st, the secondary cause must be in the natural course of things; and, 2d, there must be no other accidental circumstances to occasion the secondary cause. The secondary cause may be partly due to the constitution of the deceased from habits of dissipation, which fact would serve as an expiatory circumstance in the case. Among the secondary causes of death may be mentioned septicæmia, pyæmia, erysipelas, tetanus, gangrene, that is, wound diseases, also the wound accident—as we may call delirium tremens, and surgical operations rendered necessary to the treatment of the case. We may add, besides the regular wound diseases, inflammation in and about the wound, septic in character, perhaps not justifying the title of septicæmia, but which, with its accompanying fever, may be the “last straw” in a case which might otherwise recover. Some of these secondary causes will now be considered more at length. SEPTICÆMIA is a general febrile disease due to the absorption into the system from a wound of the products of bacteria or due to the