furiously into a crowd, either from wantonness or thoughtlessness, and the like accident happens, it will be murder. If a person in England, duly qualified by law to kill game, accidentally kills another while so doing, he is guilty of no offence. If a person be prohibited by statute from killing game, and the like accident happens by his shooting, he is not answerable in any other manner than a person duly qualified. This last case illustrates the distinction as to cases of malum prohibitum. On the other hand, if a person, shooting at poultry belonging to another person, by accident kills a man, if his intention was to steal the poultry, it will be murder, by reason of the felonious intent: if his intention was not to steal, but it was an act of mere wantonness, it will be manslaughter only. In these last cases, the act is malum in se. In respect to injuries committed through ignorance or mistake. This may arise when a man, intending to do a lawful act, does what is unlawful. An illustration commonly put is that of a man intending to kill a thief or housebreaker, in his own house, who, by mistake, kills one of his own family. In this case, if he acted under circumstances of reasonable belief that the party killed was the thief or housebreaker, there is no ground to impute criminality to him. His conduct was founded in a mistake of fact, that is, of the person; for it is sometimes lawful, by the common law, to kill a housebreaker found in your house. But a mistake, or ignorance of law will not justify an act of the like nature. If a person supposes he has a right to kill a trespasser or outlaw, or excommunicated person, and he does so, he is guilty of murder.In respect to crimes committed by compulsion or force. The common law recognises but few cases in which the authority or command of a superior furnishes any excuse for the commission of an offence. In the case of children or servants, the commands of the master or parent furnish no excuse. In the case of a wife who commits a crime in company with her husband, she is deemed, by the benignity of our law, to act under compulsion, and therefore she is excused in all cases except murder, manslaughter and treason. These exceptions are founded upon the peculiar danger and atrocity of the offences, and the public policy of discouraging every motive to commit them. Where the wife commits the offence alone, without the company or compulsion of her husband, she is personally responsible in the same manner as if she were unmarried. There are

other species of compulsion recognised in the common law, which may excuse the commission of offences. Thus where a person commits an offence in consequence of threats or menaces, which induce a fear of death or other bodily harm. This is called duress per minas. But the fear which compels a man to do an illegal act must be just and well grounded, such as may intimidate a firm and resolute man, and not merely of such a nature as may operate upon the timid and irresolute, otherwise it will constitute no excuse. Thus, in time of war or rebellion, a man may be excused for doing treasonable acts, if they are caused by the compulsion of the enemy or rebels. But the compulsion must not be a mere threat to do injury to property, nor even slight injury to the person, but a just fear either of death or of great bodily injury; and even in such case, it is the duty of the party to avoid doing such acts as soon as he safely may, by escape or otherwise; for if he does not, he will be liable to punishment as a volunteer. But even this excuse is not allowed in all cases, but seems principally confined to crimes positively created by society; for no man can justify or excuse himself for murdering an innocent person, under the pretence of fear or necessity, though he certainly may kill another in necessary self-defence. Another case of compulsion or necessity often occurs in the reasoning of speculative writers, whether a person in extreme want of food is excusable for stealing to satisfy his hunger. Whatever may be the doctrine of foreign jurists, or the opinion of publicists, it is certain that no such excuse is now admitted in the common law. If the offence should be committed under circumstances of extraordinary suffering, the case would rarely be brought before any tribunal of justice; and if it should be, the power of pardon in the government, and the humanity of the court itself, would either annul or mitigate the punishment. There is another case often put, where two persons at sea are shipwrecked, and get on a single plank, and it cannot support both, but both must be drowned unless one is displaced: what is then to be done? In such a case, the law of self-preservation has been supposed to justify either party in a forcible dispossession of the other. The common law seems to recognise this principle, and, in such a deplorable calamity, imputes no blame to the survivor.—We now proceed to notice another important distinction, which the common law acts upon in relation to crimes. It is the dis

tinction in guilt and punishment which is made between principals and accessories. Persons are called principals in the first degree, who are the actors or perpetrators of the offence. Persons who are present, aiding and abetting the perpetrator, are called principals in the second degree. This presence may be either in fact, as where the parties are immediately standing by, or are within sight and hearing; or constructive, as when the party, though not within sight or hearing, is on the watch at a convenient distance, ready to assist, and near enough to do so, if required. There are cases, too, in which a person may be the principal in construction of law, although he is absent, and the fact is done through the instrumentality of another; as, in case of murder by poisoning, a man may be the principal felon by preparing or laying the poison, with an intention that it should be taken, or by employing an innocent person to administer it, ander false pretences, although he is not personally present when it is taken or administered. Many cases of the like nature may be easily put. An accessory is he who is not the chief actor in the offence, nor present at its perpetration, in the sense above stated, but who is in some manner concerned in it, either before or after the fact is committed. If he proeures, counsels, abets or commands the crime, and is absent at its commission, he is deemed an accessory before the fact. If, without any such participation in it, he knows that the crime has been committed, and afterwards relieves, assists, comforts or receives the offender, he is deemed an accessory after the fact. Thus, if he aids the offender to escape, or rescues him from arrest, or conceals or supports him, he is deemed an accessory after the fact; so if he buys or receives stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. There are certain classes of offences at the common law which admit of no accessories. Thus, in treason, all the parties concerned are deemed principals propter odium delicti; and in offences which are under the degree of felony, and in trespasses, all persons concerned are deemed principals, for an opposite reason, because the law will not condescend, in petty crimes, to ascertain the different degrees of guilt. In all other offences, that is, in all except the highest and the lowest, there may be, technically speaking, accessories. It follows as a maxim, that, in such cases, the accessory cannot be guilty of a higher offence than his principal. In respect to punishment, the ancient common law did not make any

distinction between accessories and principals; but by statute, many distinctions are now made, and especially regarding accessories after the fact. In the U. States, few of our criminal codes have failed to mark out very strong differences in the punishment. There are, in fact, many reasons which require the distinction between principals and accessories to be constantly kept in view. In the first place, in many instances, a man cannot be tried as accessory until after the trial and conviction of the principal. In the next place, if a man be indicted as accessory and acquitted, he may still be indicted as principal. In the third place, as a natural inference from the other considerations, the defence of the accused may, and often must, turn upon very different principles, where he is accused as accessory, from what might or could arise if he were accused as principal.-In respect to the mode of presentment and trial for offences. In England, no person can be brought to trial, for any capital offence or felony, except upon the presentment or indictment of a grand jury; but for inferior offences or misdemeanors, an information, in the nature of an indictment, may be filed by the king's attorney-general, or other proper officer, upon which the party may be put upon trial. Even in such cases, an indictment also lies. In the U. States, informations are rarely resorted to in any of the states in such cases; and the usual, and, in many cases, the only constitutional course is an indictment by a grand jury. All offences, whether charged by indictment or information, are, by the common law, to be tried by a jury composed of 12 men, and their verdict is conclusive upon the facts. In the U. States, this privilege of trial by jury is generally secured by the constitutions of the state and national governments. A privilege often quite as valuable to the accused, is that of being assisted by counsel in the management of his defence. It is a curious anomaly in the English jurisprudence, that counsel are admissible in the argument of facts to the jury only in the highest and lowest offences; in treason, by the express provision of statute, and in mere misdemeanors, by the common law. In all capital cases, except treason, the accused is denied this privilege; and, however important and useful such a privilege may be, the introduction of it has been hitherto successfully resisted in the British parliament. In the U. States, a far different, and, as we think, wiser and more humane rule prevails. In all criminal cases,

40

the accused is entitled, as of right, to the assistance of counsel in his defence; and this right, also, is generally secured by the state and national constitutions of government. This is not the place for a discussion of the value of such a right, though to us it seems recommended by principles of policy as well as of justice and humanity. The mode of impanneling juries, the right of challenge, and other incidents of criminal trials, belong more appropriately to other heads. (See Crime, Courts, and Jury.)

CRISIS (from piva, to decide), in medieine; a point in a disease, at which a decided change for the better or the worse takes place. The crisis is most strongly marked in the case of acute diseases, and with strong patients, particularly if the course of the disease is not checked by energetic treatment. At the approach of a crisis, the disease appears to take a more violent character, and the disturbance of the system reaches the highest point. If the change is for the better, the violent symptoms cease with a copious perspiration, or some other discharge from the system. In cases where the discharge may have been too violent, and the nobler organs have been greatly deranged, or where the constitution is too weak to resist the disease, the patient's condition becomes worse. In regular fevers, the crisis takes place on regular days, which are called critical days (the 7th, 14th and 21st); sometimes, however, a little sooner or later, according to the climate and the constitution of the patient. A bad turn often produces a crisis somewhat sooner. When the turn is favorable, the crisis frequently occurs a little later. After a salutary crisis, the patient feels himself relieved, and the dangerous symptoms cease.-It hardly need be mentioned, that the word crisis is figuratively used for a decisive point in any important affair or business, for instance, in politics.

CRISPIN; the name of two legendary saints, whose festival is celebrated on the 25th of October. They are said to have been born at Rome, about 303 A. D., and to have travelled to France to propagate Christianity, where they died as martyrs. During their mission, they maintained themselves by shoemaking; hence they are the patrons of shoemakers.

CRITICAL PHILOSOPHY. (See Kant, and Philosophy.)

CROATIA; a kingdom of the Austrian monarchy, connected with Hungary. It is divided into Civil and Military Croatia. The former contains 3665 square miles,

441,000 inhabitants, 7 cities, 16 market towns, 1827 villages, and consists of the three counties of Agram, Creutz, and the Hungarian Littorale (of which the principal place is Fiume). It is watered by the Drave, Save, Culpa and Unna, and bounded by Hungary, Sclavonia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Illyria and Styria. Military Croatia (see Military Districts) contains 6100, according to some, 4884, square miles, with 414,800 inhabitants, in 6 cities, 6 market towns, and 1241 villages. The inhabitants are Croats and Rascians, mixed with a few Germans and Hungarians. The Croats, a Sclavonic tribe, are Roman Catholics, and are known as good soldiers, but have made little progress in science and the arts; nay, they have not among them even all of the ordinary mechanics. Their language is the Slaveno-Horwatic dialect. In Turkish Croatia (on the Unna and near Bihatsch), they are Greek Catholics. Civil Croatia is fertile, and intersected by heights of very moderate elevation, extending down from Styria and Carniola. Military_Croatia, however, towards Bosnia and Dalmatia, has mountains rising to the height of 5400 feet; as, for instance, Wellebit, the Plissivicza mountains, and the mountains of Zrin. The climate is healthier than that of the neighboring Sclavonia, and mild. The country produces chiefly wine, tobacco, grain of various sorts, including maize, fruits, particularly plums, wood, cattle, horses, sheep, swine, game, fish, bees, iron, copper, and sulphur.

CROCODILE (Crocodilus); a genus of saurian, or lizard-like reptile, species of which are found in the old and new world. That inhabiting the Nile and other rivers of Africa has been known for many ages, and celebrated, from the remotest antiquity, for qualities which render it terrible to mankind. As the largest reptile known,* and as the most ferocious and destructive of the inhabitants of the waters, it could not but command the attention, and excite the fears, of those who were near enough to observe its peculiarities. Few persons have read the sublime book of Job, without being struck with the magnificent and terrible description of the attributes of leviathan to which alone the characters of the crocodile correspond. It is not surprising that the Egyptians, who deified almost

*The skeletons of much larger reptiles have been discovered within the last half century; but, certain they had become extinct long before the from the strata in which they were found, it is earth was inhabited by man.

every thing, should place among their gods animals so powerful and destructive, though a better reason is to be found in the defence which they afforded against the incursions of Arabs and other robbers, who were not fond of adventuring across canals and rivers frequented by crocodiles. A regular priesthood and worship were consecrated to this ferocious deity, and in the temple of Memphis a sacred individual of the species was reared with great care, being abundantly fed, adorned with jewels, and lodged in a spacious basin, having offerings and sacrifices made to him. Being thus fed and managed, the terrible reptile became sufficiently mild and tractable to be led about in ceremonial processions. When he died, the priests embalmed his body, and buried it in the royal sepulchre! So much for the wisdom of the nation which is commonly regarded as the most enlightened of antiquity! The most ancient description of the crocodile is that given by Herodotus, in his observations on Egypt, in his first book. This account, though mingled with a considerable share of fable, is generally correct; and some of the errors still in existence concerning this animal, appear to be derived from his statement: such are the stories of the bird which picks the crocodile's teeth, and that the animal moves only the upper jaw. The latter assertion, though utterly incorrect, is repeated, even at this day, by persons who have had opportunities of knowing better from actual observation, had they not been too much blinded by prejudice to profit thereby. The genus is characterized by the following peculiarities: The tail is compressed or broadest vertically; the posterior feet are wholly or partly palmated; the tongue attached to the mouth, even to its very edges, without being in the least extensible; a single range of simple pointed teeth; the male organ single. There are five toes on the front, four on the hind feet, only three toes of each foot being provided with claws. The body, above and below, and the entire length of the tail, are covered with square scales or plates, most of those on the back having ridges or spines of various lengths: the flanks are only protected by small round scales. Two ranges of spines, forming a double dentated line, are placed at the base of the tail, which subsequently unite or form a single ridge on the remainder of its length. The ears are externally closed by two fleshy slips; the nostrils form a long narrow canal, which only opens interiorly at the

back of the throat. The eyes are provided with three lids; and under the throat there are two small pouches, which secrete a strongly musky substance. Cuvier has divided the genus into three sub-genera, viz. gavials, having an elongated narrow beak or snout; caymans, or alligators, with broad snouts, and having four lower teeth to fit into holes excavated for them in the upper jaw, and crocodiles proper, having the head oblong, twice as long as broad, and the four long lower jaw teeth passing by grooves, and not entering into cavities in the upper jaw. The gavials are most common in, if not peculiar to, the great rivers of India. The alligators are confined to the new continent, and the crocodile proper, with a single exception, to Africa. These reptiles are truly formidable, from their great size and strength, and, if they were not rendered unwieldy by the length of the body and tail, might become as dreadful on land as in the water, where they can act to the greatest advantage. Where they abound, it is extremely dangerous to venture into the rivers for the purpose of bathing, or to be carelessly exposed in a small boat. On shore, their shortness of limb, great length of body, and difficulty of turning, or of advancing otherwise than directly forward, enable men and animals readily to escape pursuit. For a crocodile of 12, 15, or 18 feet in length, to turn fairly, it must necessarily describe a very large circle. In the water, the vast force it can exert by means of the long oar-like tail, amply compensates for want of flexibility, and renders the animal more than a match for any of its enemies. The force with which it darts through the water, in pursuit of prey, resembles the flight of an arrow rather than the progression of a huge animal, and, when engaged in rude gambols, or in combating with others of its kind, the waves are lashed into foam, and may be truly said to "boil like a pot." The mouth, when expanded, forms a horrible chasm, extending even to the ears, and armed around its border by strong pointed teeth. This construction, with the absence of lips, and the confined position of the tongue, show that the action of the mouth is confined simply to seizing and tearing the food. These animals are exclusively carnivorous, feeding on such animals as frequent the waters, on fish, or carcasses thrown into the streams they inhabit. They always prefer their food in a certain state of putrefaction, and are found to keep animals killed by themselves in the mud, until this process has

42

begun. In regard to the general character and habits of crocodiles, we might safely refer to the account given in the first volume of this work, under the title Alligator, which has been more carefully observed. They are so similar in every respect, that what is said of the American species, with very slight modification, will hold good of the African. The crocodile of Egypt is no longer found, except in the upper parts of that country, where the heat is greatest, and the population least numerous. Anciently, the species was common nearly to the outlet of the Nile; and it is stated by Pliny, that they used to pass the winter months buried in the mud, in a state of torpidity. They are still common enough in the river Senegal, the Jaïre, Joliba, &c. The size to which these creatures grow is very remarkable, and would lead us to believe that they live to a vast age. It is stated by excellent authorities, that individuals have been killed in Upper Egypt measuring 30 feet in length. M. Cloquet, who was one of the French institute, engaged in exploring that country, while the armies of the republic were present, saw a crocodile 25 feet long. A little reflection upon the muscular power of such a reptile will serve to convince us of its ability to commit extensive ravages on the lives of other creatures. There are numerous particulars connected with the anatomy of these beings, which are very curious and interesting. Such are the articulations of the lower jaw with the upper, the joint being so far back as to cause almost every incidental observer to believe that the upper, not the lower jaw, is moved in opening the mouth; the lateral spines on the vertebræ, which prevent the turning of the body, except in a large circle; the curious set of ribs designed exclusively for the protection of the belly, aided by two broad bones standing on the anterior edge of the pelvis, which may be compared with the ossa marsupialia of certain quadrupeds; the construction of the external ears; the apparatus for the protection of the eye, &c., &c. But for such details, we are under the necessity of referring the reader to treatises especially devoted to their illustration. The species of crocodile admitted by Cuvier, in the excellent researches contained in the 10th and 12th volumes of the Annales du Muséum, are the following: 1. the common crocodile of Egypt (C. vulgaris); 2. the doublecrested (C. biporcatus); 3. the lozenge crocodile (C. rhombifer); 4. the two-plate crocodile (C. biscutatus); and 5. the Hay

tian (C. acutus), the only true crocodile found in the new world, according to his definition. The memoirs above referred to contain very minute and satisfactory accounts of the discriminating marks of these species, and to that source the reader who desires such information may refer with great advantage.

CRESUS, the last king of Lydia, lived in the sixth century before Christ. He was brave, and augmented his empire by the conquest of many provinces of Asia Minor. His riches, which he obtained chiefly from mines, and the gold dust of the river Pactolus, were greater than those of any king before him; and the expression "riches of Croesus" came to signify unbounded wealth. Proud of his treasures, he carried his love of splendor to extravagance, and thought himself the happiest of men. Herodotus tells us that Solon visited him at his court, and, on being asked by him who was the happiest man he knew, mentioned, first, Tellus, then Cleobis and Biton, all three humble individuals of Greece, who had died in the midst of a virtuous career. The story of these individuals, as related by Solon, is one of the most affecting and charming passages in the work of the father of history., Croesus manifested displeasure that the choice of the sage had not fallen upon him; but Solon reminded him that no one can be safely pronounced happy until his death; and Croesus was soon forced to acknowledge the truth of the reflection, having lost two beloved sons by violent death, and having been conquered himself by Cyrus, against whom he had waged war for the benefit of the Babylonians. He was taken prisoner in his capital, Sardis, and, having been placed on a pile in order to be burnt, he three times exclaimed, "Oh, Solon!" Cyrus, having learned the meaning of his exclamation, was much moved, ordered him to descend, took him as his companion in his wars, and treated him well. time of the death of Croesus is not known. He was alive in the reign of Cambyses, the son and successor of Cyrus. He is represented as one of the most pious among the ancients, constantly laboring to please the gods. Some historians deny the interview with Solon; others do not mention his having been sentenced to be burnt: at all events, the history, as it is told in Herodotus, is equalled by few narratives, true or fictitious, in touching simplicity.

CROCUS. (See Saffron).
CROISADE. (See Crusade).

The