Cockburn,  C.  J.,  thereupon,  on  the  authority  of  Rex  v.  Rus-
sell,2  directed  the  jury  to  return  a  verdict  of  guilty ;  but  it
appearing  doubtful  to  him  how  far  the  ruling  in  that  case  to
the  effect  that  if  poison  be  t&ken  by  a  woman  to  procure
abortion,  and  death  ensues,  she  is  felo  de  se,  could  be  upheld  :
and  still  more  so,  how  far  a  man,  accessory  to  the  misde-
meanor of  a  woman  taking  poison  to  procure  abortion,  can
be  held  to  be  accessory  to  her  self-murder,  if,  contrary  to  the
intention  of  the  parties,  death  should  be  the  consequence,
his  lordship  reserved  these  points.  The  higher  court  held
that  the  conviction  was  wrong,  and  that  there  was  a  very
marked  distinction  between  the  two  cases.  In  the  one  the
prisoner  persuaded  the  woman  to  take  the  arsenic  ;  in  the  other
the  prisoner  was  unwilling  that  the  Avoman  should  take  the
poison.  The  facts  of  the  case  were  quite  consistent  with  the
1  1  Leigh  &  C.  161  (1862).  ^  i  Moo.  C.  C.  356  (1832)  ;  supra,  §  56.
60


HOMICIDE.
[chap.  IV.
