Violent death is apparently ascertained without difficulty; and when the cause proceeds so far as to destroy the organization of a part essential to life,little hesitation can be felt. Haemorrhages, and the appearance of contusions, are often fallacious. The former certainly take place from a variety of causes independent of violence, and the latter may arise from petechiae, or similar causes. We can scarcely, however, conceive a question to come before a court of judicature, where the difficulty would arise whether death was occasioned by a putrid fever or by blows; and we think the decision of the father of forensic medicine, Zacchias, decisive in this respect. In case of violence, he observes, there is an extravasation under the skin: the lividness from other causes only discolours the surface by a change in the skin itself. We know that Stoll in two cases discovered a considerable extravasation under petechias; but these instances are rare, and the danger of mistake very trifling. On the other hand, considerable extravasations may take place internally, without the surface being affected, as where the bruise consisted of a large heavy weight, which gave a considerable shock without making an impression on any particular part. This cause of death may, however, be discovered by dissection; though, undoubtedly, bruises after death may, before the blood has coagulated, occasion similar appearances. This source of error must be carefully investigated in the particular cases.

One very important subject of inquiry arises, however, out of these discussions. If a man, in an accidental or premeditated struggle with another, by any extraordinary exertion, break a blood vessel and die, though the struggle occasioned the death, yet it is deemed accidental. If this struggle be a pugilistic contest, where personal animosity is unsuspected, and the person thrown dies on the spot, a doubt will arise how far his antagonist was the cause of his death. Again, if, in the violence and heat of a quarrel, a person strike another with an inconsiderable weapon, and death follows as much from the passion as the blow, the doubt will be increased. In each instance, the physician and surgeon are called on to decide; and we know no cases in which such contradictory evidence has been given. The principles on which the decision should rest appear to be these. When, from prior complaints, any weakness or predisposition to disease, hereditary or otherwise, can be discovered; when the violence is such that, in a sound healthy body, it would not probably produce any dangerous effect, the blow or the fall should not be accused. If a man, subject to a spitting of blood, in a struggle should break a blood vessel; if a person with a full florid complexion, and a short neck, whose parent had died of apoplexy, and perhaps about the same age,should fall down dead in a trifling contest, where the exertion was inconsiderable, we should certainly not convict his antagonist of any thing but imprudence and misfortune.

When any contest has taken place, independent of personal animosity, and some slight injury has been seemingly received, the subsequent conduct of the patient should have great influence on the judgment of the practitioner. If he has received injury in his side or head, and, instead of a cautious mode of diet, should indulge in every irregularity, the pleurisy or phrenitis that might ensue should not, in justice, be attributed to the antagonist; nor, when the proper distinction is made, will the law, we believe, condemn him. This is not, however, the place to discuss a legal question, but to point out the foundation for the physician's opinion. The case is somewhat different when an abscess has followed external injury, independent of any irregularity of the patient's conduct. The physician must then decidedly attribute death to the consequences at least of the accident; and the legal distinctions will regulate the degree of criminality, and, of course, the punishment.

We have for some time been trenching on the province of the surgeon; but to introduce those parts of our subject which are more peculiarly his object, we must offer some remarks on the dissection of bodies, with a view to discover the disease which has proved fatal, or the nature of the wound, in complicated cases, which has been destructive.

Dissections are opposed on many grounds. We shall notice only the objections which urge that by this means we discover effects rather than causes, and that complaints may have occured either in the minuter parts, which cannot be detected, or in the nervous system, which are not cognizable by our senses. Undoubtedly we more often observe effects rather than causes; but the objection will only apply when the anatomist, from ignorance, cannot detect the difference; or, from haste, will not wait to examine. The source of great error has been the partial examination of the part apparently most affected. We remember the dissection of a person supposed to be starved. The stomach was empty and full of wind, but not contracted. Some doubt remained; for the mesentery had not been examined, in which the conglobate glands were afterwards discovered in an enlarged and scirrhous state. Many similar instances might be adduced; and we may here add, that, in general, every cavity of the body should be examined with care, particularly the head. Complaints also may undoubtedly occur in parts of the body which even an exact anatomist may not think of examining; but these, we believe, will seldom prove fatal: nor, except from deleterious gases, is there any probability that the nervous system will be so much affected as to produce death, without leaving evident corporeal traces.

In medical jurisprudence, however, dissection is absolutely necessary, as the law requires the best evidence that can be procured, and various cases may be stated in which it is essential. A man, for instance, is found dead in a close apartment, in which charcoal has been burning, or which is in part consumed. The cause will appear evident: but dissection may discover traces of poison or of blows; and the fire may have been lighted to prevent suspicion.