As in the case of wounds, so also in respect of blows, injuries apparently inadequate have produced death; it then becomes difficult to fix the degree of guilt which should be attached to the aggressor; for though according to the strict letter of the law, every man is responsible for the ultimate effect of an illegal act committed by him; yet in moral justice there is much difference between the atrocity of him who strikes a grievous wound with a deadly weapon, from which by chance his victim may recover; and the fault of him who transported by sudden passion gives an ordinary blow, which by accident, by reason of some inward and unknown disease of his adversary, or by injudicious treatment, becomes fatal. Numerous cases might be cited in support of this position: that of _Brain_ for the murder of _Watts_, _Cro. Eliz._ 778: _H. P. C._ 455. is one of the most remarkable, not only from the circumstances attending the trial, where the jury were fined and imprisoned for a corrupt verdict, but also for the physiological circumstance, that the deceased died instantly from a blow on the calf of his leg. The parties had previously quarrelled and fought; and _Brain_, the prisoner, was hurt; the next day _Watts_ passing his shop made mouths at him, on which new provocation _Brain_ hit him the blow which instantly proved fatal. The Court held that the new provocation was insufficient, and that the death must be referred to precedent malice—might they not also have considered that a blow on the calf of the leg was more insufficient to produce death under ordinary circumstances, than a wry face to induce or inflame a quarrel? The prisoner was found guilty, but not without considerable and as it appears to us proper resistance on the part of the jury; the case being on Appeal, the Crown could not pardon, though the appellant might compromise his suit:—we are not informed whether the prisoner was executed.