-3-
34
and I sincerely hope never will be the law and I shall
confine myself to telling you of one case decided by a
very eminent judge many years ago, because like good wine,
good law is all the better for keeping.
In this case the prisoner waylaid a man and when the
man showed fight he hit him with an iron bar across one
finger and cut it rather badly. That is all that happened.
One blow with an iron bar and a bad cut on the finger. The
wounded man went to the doctor and the doctor said "This is
a nasty wound you have got. I would advise you to have the
finger amputated. " The man said "No fear, I am not going
to have my finger amputated.“ He had a dressing applied to
the wound on the finger but lock-jaw set in and in spite of
a belated amputation the man died of lock-jaw.
When his trial
came on the Mr. Macnamara of that trial confidently advanced
the defence which the Mr. Macnamara of this trial has advanced
here today, but Justice Maule would have none of it. He told
the jury that if the prisoner wilfully inflicted the wound
which was ultimately the cause of death he was guilty of
murder. In so doing he was following the law which had
been laid down constantly and without criticism since the
days of Queen Elizabeth and it is still the law. If a man
inflicts wounds of the nature we have heard of he has got to
take the risk of the victim's not finding a skilled and
appropriate person to dress them. If there is nobody to
tend the wounds then he is answerable if death ensues.
It will be for you to say whether death was directly
connected here with the wounds but the fact that the wounds
might have been healed if a doctor had been walking round
the village that day who would have been able to give
immediate attention, you can put out of your mind entirely.