The first count of the indictment charged that the prisoner on the 10th day of January 1811, and on divers other days and times between that day and the 20th of March in the year aforesaid, at the parish of St. Mary’s in the county of Monmouth, wilfully, maliciously, unlawfully and feloniously did administer to and cause to be administered to and taken by one _Hannah Mary Goldsmith_, single woman, divers large quantities, that is to say, 6 ounces of the _decoction_ of a certain shrub called _savin_, then and there being a noxious and destructive thing, the said _H. M. G._ on the said 10th day of January in the year aforesaid, and continually from thence until the said 20th day of March in the year aforesaid, at &c. aforesaid, being with child, but not quick with child, to wit, at the respective times of administering such divers large quantities of the _decoction_ of the said shrub called _savin_ as aforesaid, with intent thereby to cause and procure the miscarriage of the said _H. M. G._, against the form of the statute, &c. It appeared that the prisoner prepared the medicine which he administered to Miss _Goldsmith_ by pouring boiling water on the leaves of a shrub: and the medical men examined, stated that such a preparation is called _an infusion_ not a _decoction_,—which is made by boiling the substance in the water. The prisoner’s counsel insisted that he was entitled to an acquittal on the ground that the medicine was misdescribed. _Lawrence, J._ This objection will not hold. The infusion and decoction are _ejusdem generis_, and the variance is immaterial. The question is, whether the prisoner administered any matter or thing to this woman with intent to procure abortion. Witnesses were called for the prisoner to prove that the shrub he used was not _savin_. The counsel for the prosecution, insisted, that even in that case the prisoner might be found guilty upon the last count of the indictment, which charged that he administered a large quantity “of a certain mixture to the jurors unknown, _then and there being a noxious and destructive thing_.” The prisoner’s counsel objected that unless the shrub was _savin_, there was no evidence that the mixture was “noxious and destructive.” _Lawrence, J._ In an indictment on this clause of the statute, it was improper to introduce these words; and although they are introduced, there is no necessity to prove them. It is immaterial whether the shrub was _savin_ or not, or whether or not it was capable of procuring abortion,[54] or even whether the woman was actually with child. If the prisoner believed at the time that it would procure abortion, and administered it with that intent, the case is within the statute, and he is guilty of the offence laid to his charge.