.3 least when not loaded, if it were not sufficiently near to cause harm;1 or if the gun be used too far off to harm.2 And it lies on the prosecution to give some evidence that the gun was loaded or the means used were sufficient ;3 though, considering that the fear of the person aimed at is the same, and the matter is often so great an uncertainty, this rule seems unjust, and the prisoner ought to be bound to disprove the possibility of harm. The gun, however, is not the less "loaded" merely because the means of firing it failed.4 To administer poison, within the meaning of this enactment, means to put it in such a situation, that it will in the course of things in all probability be taken by the person intended, though the party administering was not present when the poison was taken.5 And it is not the less a ground of inferring an intent to murder, that the immediate object was merely to cause a miscarriage. 6 At The word "wound" has been so interpreted as not to include an injury which does not break the skin, and not to include, for example, a kick which merely ruptured an interior vessel, unless blood flowed from the rupture.8 one time the biting off a finger was said not to be a wound when the word "wound" alone was used in the statute, for wounding implied that an instrument was used; but now it is immaterial, whether an instrument is used or not, as all means are included in the present statute. In an indictment for wounding, &c., with intent to murder, it is wholly unnecessary to set forth the details of the means used to carry out the intent; but whether it was by poison or wounding, &c., should be stated generally, and the intent should be stated. And though the prisoner cannot be found guilty of a common assault under the indictment:10 he may be found guilty of unlawfully wounding 11 The modern crimes of causing grievous bodily harm.— 1 R. v Kitchen, R. & Ry. 95. 2 R. v Abraham, 1 Cox, C. C. 208. 3 Whitley's Case, 1 Lew. C. C. 123. 4 24 & 25 Vic. c. 100, § 19. 5 R. v Harley, 4 C. & P. 369; R. v Dale, 6 Cox, C. C. 14; R. v Farrow, D. & B. 164. 6 R. v Wilson, D. & B. 127. 7 R. v Wood, 4 C. & P. 381; 1 M. & Rob. 527; R. v Payne, 4 C. & P. Jones, 3 Cox, C. C. 441; R. v Waltham, 3 Cox, C. C. Stevens, 1 Mood. 409. 10 14 & 15 Vic. c. 100, § 10. §§ 4, 5. VOL. I. 558. 442. 8 R. v 9 R. v 11 Ibid. c. 19, E E While in those crimes called attempts to murder, the intent is the vital element, there are many cases in which grievous bodily harm is done, and the intent does not go the length of killing, but only of wounding and causing pain. Accordingly, the statute has defined as separate offences those which actually cause grievous bodily harm by whatever means, though not with intent to kill the wounded party; and these are also felonies, and punishable in the same way. The various means of shooting, strangling, stupefying with chroloform, and poisoning, are specially named as usual means for this class of offences also.2 The intent to maim or disfigure is an inference from the facts, and in some cases it is scarcely possible to infer any other intent than the more serious intent to murder. But if there is an intent to frighten, though not an intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the latter is nevertheless done, the malicious intent will be presumed.4 And where the same means of poisoning are used, but only with intent to injure, aggrieve, or annoy, it is a misdemeanour.5 And to administer a drug to excite the But where sensual passion is to aggrieve and annoy." no weapon is used, but grievous bodily harm is done, In this last the crime is reduced to a misdemeanour.7 offence the intent does not require to be proved, provided the circumstances show it was an unlawful or malicious And on an indictment for this misdewound or harm. meanour, the defendant may be found guilty of an assault. Moreover where a person is indicted for the felony of poisoning, he may be acquitted of that felony and convicted of the misdemeanour.9 Mutilation of the body for special objects.-Under this head of maiming and wounding would come all acts which maim or injure the body grievously, whatever the inten 1 24 & 25 Vic. c. 100, § 18; 27 & 28 Vic. c. 47. Penal servitude for life, or not less than five years, or two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour. 2 24 & 25 Vic. c. 100, §§ 19-23. R. v Odgers, 2 M. & Rob. 479. 3 R. v Sullivan, Car. & M. 209; 4 R. v Ward, 41 L. J., M. C. 69. 5 24 & 25 Vic. c. 100, § 24. Penal servitude for five years, or two 6 R. v Wilkins, 1 L. & C. 8 R. v Taylor, L. R., 1 C. C. R. 194; R. v Oliver, Bell, C. C. 287; R. v Sparrow, Bell, C. C. 298. 924 & 25 Vic. c. 100, § 25. tion be; and though the immediate object be to produce a state of health or a particular incapacity with an ulterior view, irrespective of malice. Such attempts to maim others against their will, and professedly for their own advantage, are indeed unknown in this country, though in eastern countries they are not unfrequent.1 Causing bodily harm by spiteful acts and conduct.-Other modes of causing bodily harm have been expressly provided for by statutes. Thus, where a master or mistress being legally bound to supply food, or clothing, or lodging, by neglect or refusal causes bodily harm, so as to produce permanent injury to a servant or apprentice, this is a misdemeanour.2 The ability to supply the food in such cases must, however, be shown, for the master may have none to give, even though he may have applied to the workhouse for relief. And it is felony if gunpowder, or explosive, or noxious, or corrosive substances are used to do grievous bodily harm in ships or elsewhere. And it is the same to put stones and articles on railways, or remove signals, or cause other interruptions, or to throw stones at railway carriages so as to endanger the safety of railway travellers; and any wilful or unlawful act done to endanger railway travellers is a misdemeanour.6 With regard to these offences, it is enough, that the act might have endangered the safety of persons carried in the railway carriages or trucks, though no actual harm resulted." Aiding another in self-mutilation.-A person who mains himself or procures another to do so, in order that he may be better enabled to beg, or prevent himself being pressed for 1 Semiramis is said to have introduced the order of eunuchs.-Gibb. Rom. Emp. c. 31. And the practice of mutilation has since extensively prevailed in Eastern countries. Voltaire complained of chorister boys being mutilated.-Volt., Becc. c. 20. Domitian gained applause by prohibiting the practice altogether, as regards children. -Suet. Dom. c. 7; Justin. Ap. ii. And Aurelian prohibited more than a certain number of eunuchs to be kept.-Aurel. Vict. 2 24 & 25 Vic. c. 100, § 26. Five years' penal servitude, or two years' imprisonment. 3 R. v Chandler, Dearsl. 453; R. v Pelham, 8 Q. B. 959. 4 24 & 25 Vic. c. 100, §§ 28, 29, 30. Penal servitude for life, or not less than five years, or two years' imprisonment. 5 Ibid. §§ 32, 33. 6 Ibid. § 34. 7 R. v Holroyd, 2 M. & Rob. 339; R. v Bradford, 8 Cox, 309. a soldier, was said by Hale to commit a misdemeanour, and both are liable to fine or imprisonment.1 Self-mutilation, if a crime.-Since suicide is treated as an unlawful act, and any aiding and abetting of it a misdemeanour, it might be expected that any inferior degree of the same wrong, consisting in any kind of selfmutilation, would be treated as a crime, especially as the power of punishment, which in the case of suicide becomes impossible, is available for any self-imposed injury short of self-murder. Such an injury seems indeed rare, and the love of life is a secure safeguard against it; yet selfmutilation seems a crime under our law. It is true, the motives that impel to it, whether religious, fanatical, or mercenary, have long ceased to have any hold on the mind. Priests and scholars, courtiers and chamberlains, feel no overpowering motives to any such conduct; and hence the only punishment that has yet been assigned to it is that for misdemeanour.2 But in the naval service, if a marine wilfully maim himself or another marine, or cause himself or another to be maimed, whether on request or not, or tamper with his eyes with intent to render himself or the other unfit for service, he may forfeit all his right to pensions and good conduct pay; yet further than this collateral liability, punishment there is none.3 And the Articles of War, which also apply to army and navy, treat any self-mutilation, so as to render one unfit for service, as an offence.1 1 1 Hale, 412. 2 Ibid., P. C. 412. 3 Mar. Mut. Act, 39 Vic. c. 9, § 31. 4 Art. of War, § 81. Savages mutilate themselves for various reasons, the origin of which can scarcely be traced. The lip-ring worn by the Manganya women in Africa, hideous as it was, was traced to nothing beyond a conformity to fashion.-Livingst. Zamb. 117. The Ethiopians were said to have a law, that if their king became maimed or wounded by accident, all his domestics were compelled to wound themselves in the same way, and at his death to kill themselves.Diod. Sic. Among some tribes, when a marriage occurs, instead of a ring being put on the finger, one of the finger-joints is cut off.-Whately, Civilis. The Roman Galli, or priests of Cybele, mutilated themselves. In Tongking it was said, that mutilation was the only mode of obtaining rapid promotion in the state.-3 Univ. Mod. Hist. 450. In India, devotees resort to self-mutilation for holy purposes, will swing on hooks, hanging themselves head downwards over a fire, will roll on a bed of prickly thorns, will jump on a couch filled with sharp knives, will bore holes in their tongues; stick their bodies full of pins and needles, or hold their arms over their heads till they stiffen. -Clarke, Ten Relig. 83. Democritus is said to have deprived himself of sight in order to be undisturbed in his studies.—Cic. de Fin. v. 29. It was reckoned by the Early Church that he who disfigured his own body by cutting off any member, or part thereof, without just reason, was guilty of a species of self-murder, as being an enemy of the workmanship of God.—Canon Apost. c. 21; Conc. Nic. can. 1. "The ascetic epidemic of the fourth and fifth centuries is a singular episode in the moral history of mankind. A hideous, sordid, and emaciated maniac, without knowledge, without patriotism, without natural affection, passing his life in a long routine of useless and atrocious self-torture, and quailing before the ghastly phantoms of his delirious brain, had become the ideal of the nations which had known the writings of Plato and Cicero, and the lives of Socrates or Cato. For about two centuries the hideous maceration of the body was regarded as the highest proof of excellence.”—2 Lecky, Hist. Mor. 114. |