History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page 1493
image
<​March 10​> did to according to appearances.
, ’s wife, was objected to as a witness for her , by ’s counsel, on the ground that the interest of the husband and wife are both one in law See Phillips on Evidence 159:
Court overruled the objection. “In cases of evident necessity, when the fact is presumed to be particularly in the wife’s knowledge, there is an exception to the general rule: Thus, a wife may be a witness on the prosecution of her husband for an offence <​committed​> against her person,” 1 Blackstone 444, n. Bull’s Nisi Prius, S.C. 287. “There are several exceptions to the general rule upon this subject, where from the nature of the injury, the information to be expected is peculiarly within the knowledge of the husband or wife; and where, to exclude such evidence, would occasion insecurity to that relation of society, which is the object of the rule to protect.” Phillips <​on​> Evidence 169. Other authorities might be shown, but the foregoing are sufficiently to the point to warrant the court in saying that husband or wife can be a competent witness, where the injury has been committed upon the person of either, and where the testimony to be given is presumed to be beneficial for public security, and of general importance to guard individuals against imposition.
—— testified that , , was called on the morning of the 22nd of October last, to administer to in case of a fever, but did not arrive till noon. He then mixed some medicine, in which was pepper, which gave her great pain. Got a syringe and administered two injections himself, to , in which she thinks there was pepper, they were very hot, and gave her great pain, seemed almost in a flame; actually gave her the cramp. stayed all the afternoon: during the night he insisted the patient’s time had come, and that she should be delivered. He continued to give doses from time to time, which gave her great pain every time she took them. told it was not her time under four weeks, told him her labor pains were not on her. told her the child was dead and every thing wrong. He interfered in such a way as to cause great pain; said an inflammation had taken place in her bowels, which had caused the death of the child; and used force which gave greater pains than she had ever endured before; begged to desist, and let her alone, saying, there was nothing unnatural before taking his medicine, and that she believed the child was right. The blood mentioned by the former witness, Mrs Sessions, was discharged from no other cause, that the violence which the used in his operations. After he let her alone she was easier. had no labor pains till Monday 24th. Had had six children, and her reckoning had always been regular. Never endured such suffering before; since then has been troubled with weakness, a difficulty of retaining her urine, was never troubled so before; has not been able to do anything since her confinement; has not been free from pain. used an unusual means in his operations, he placed his head on the ’s abdomen, and exerted his strength otherwise, which caused the most severe pain
Doctors, , , and , from hearing the testimony of previous witnesses, say that s treatment to was unusual and uncalled for, and had they operated in like manner it would be unjustifiable, and that it was contrary to the general practice [p. 1493]
March 10 did to according to appearances.
, ’s wife, was objected to as a witness for her , by ’s counsel, on the ground that the interest of the husband and wife are both one in law See Phillips on Evidence 159:
Court overruled the objection. “In cases of evident necessity, when the fact is presumed to be particularly in the wife’s knowledge, there is an exception to the general rule: Thus, a wife may be a witness on the prosecution of her husband for an offence committed against her person,” 1 Blackstone 444, n. Bull’s Nisi Prius, S.C. 287. “There are several exceptions to the general rule upon this subject, where from the nature of the injury, the information to be expected is peculiarly within the knowledge of the husband or wife; and where, to exclude such evidence, would occasion insecurity to that relation of society, which is the object of the rule to protect.” Phillips on Evidence 169. Other authorities might be shown, but the foregoing are sufficiently to the point to warrant the court in saying that husband or wife can be a competent witness, where the injury has been committed upon the person of either, and where the testimony to be given is presumed to be beneficial for public security, and of general importance to guard individuals against imposition.
—— testified that , , was called on the morning of the 22nd of October last, to administer to in case of a fever, but did not arrive till noon. He then mixed some medicine, in which was pepper, which gave her great pain. Got a syringe and administered two injections himself, to , in which she thinks there was pepper, they were very hot, and gave her great pain, seemed almost in a flame; actually gave her the cramp. stayed all the afternoon: during the night he insisted the patient’s time had come, and that she should be delivered. He continued to give doses from time to time, which gave her great pain every time she took them. told it was not her time under four weeks, told him her labor pains were not on her. told her the child was dead and every thing wrong. He interfered in such a way as to cause great pain; said an inflammation had taken place in her bowels, which had caused the death of the child; and used force which gave greater pains than she had ever endured before; begged to desist, and let her alone, saying, there was nothing unnatural before taking his medicine, and that she believed the child was right. The blood mentioned by the former witness, Mrs Sessions, was discharged from no other cause, that the violence which the used in his operations. After he let her alone she was easier. had no labor pains till Monday 24th. Had had six children, and her reckoning had always been regular. Never endured such suffering before; since then has been troubled with weakness, a difficulty of retaining her urine, was never troubled so before; has not been able to do anything since her confinement; has not been free from pain. used an unusual means in his operations, he placed his head on the ’s abdomen, and exerted his strength otherwise, which caused the most severe pain
Doctors, , , and , from hearing the testimony of previous witnesses, say that s treatment to was unusual and uncalled for, and had they operated in like manner it would be unjustifiable, and that it was contrary to the general practice [p. 1493]
Page 1493