Odger's English Common Law

294 MANSLAUGHTER.
medical science was in its infancy, they still follow literally : and they
conscientiously believe that they have done their duty, even though their
children die in some youthful illness—a result from which the attendance
of a doctor would undoubtedly have saved them.
But the offence is hard to prove ; for the prosecution must first satisfy
the jury that it was necessary to call in medical aid, and then that the
child died in consequence of their failure to do so, or that its death was
accelerated by their omission. Thus, where a child of two years of age
who suffered from chronic inflammation of the lungs and pleura wasted
away and died after an illness of eight or nine months, and the father never
summoned medical assistance, but called in the elders of his church to pray
over the child and anoint it with oil, it was held that the father was guilty
of manslaughter. 1 In a similar case, 2 however, the medical witness for the
prosecution stated that in his opinion the chances of life would have been
increased by having medical advice, and that life might possibly have been
prolonged thereby ;
but he could not say that it would probably have been
prolonged. The prisoner was convicted and released on his own recog-
nizances ;
but the Court for Crown Cases Eeserved quashed the conviction.
Coleridge, L. C. J., remarked : " It is not enough to show neglect of
reasonable means for preserving or prolonging the child's life ; but to
convict of manslaughter it must be shown that the neglect had the effect
of shortening life." Stephen, J., said : " Under section 37 of 31 & 32
Vict. c. 122, 3 it may be that the prisoner could have been convicted of
neglect of duty as a parent, but to convict of manslaughter you must show
that he caused death or accelerated it."
(b) Criminal negligence, causing Death.
"Whenever death, is caused by gross negligence in the
performance of some act which is not in itself criminal—it
may be a tort, it may be an immoral act or one contrary to
public policy, it may even be in itself a perfectly lawful act
—still, if the prisoner was guilty of criminal negligence in the
matter, and the direct result is the death of a human being,
he will be convicted of manslaughter.
In the first place, the prosecution must prove that the death
was the direct result of the prisoner's act or omission. For
this purpose it must show " facts which constitute a chain of
circumstances leading naturally " from the prisoner's alleged
1 B. v. Dowries (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 25 ; and see B. v. Senior, [1899] 1 Q. B. 283.
2 B. v. Morby (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 571.
" Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868, which contained a provision (now repealed)
resembling, but not so wide as, that in the Children Act, 1908. Similar provisions
were also contained in the repealed Acts for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children
(52 & 53 Vict. c. 44 ; 57 & 58 Vice. c. 41 ,; 4 Edw. VII. c. 16).