COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, JUNE 22.

20 members of our body should strike a blow which shall be re- would allow till eleven o’clock the following day for Dr. Drury membered for ever. There should be nohesitation or drawing to be brought up to swear to the truth of his own certificate back. We could afford to subscribe for cases of individual and handwriting, an unnecessary attendance, highly inconhardships; and on a certain day every club and union appoint- venient to the doctor, and expensive to my friend. should be given up to the authorities who have so long Are, therefore, medical certificates to be treated as a nullity? ment insulted us by their parsimonious salaries. And is the above treatment the law of the land, or merely To carry out Free-trade one hundred thousand pounds was Commissioner Fonblanque’s Christian practice of it. If the readily subscribed; to emancipate our profession ten thousand latter, the sooner the Lord Chancellor alters it the better. would be amply sufficient to meet every emergency, and to I am, Sir, your obedient servant, A LOVER OF JUSTICE. If ever there was a time more propitious erase the wrong. June, 1853. than another it is this. On all sides people are prosperous and no doubt in some and * * The proceeding appears harsh, thriving; the poor are but an unit of the population, therefore instances is but it has and law in its support. Cases custom so, we should commit very little injustice towards them. By withdrawing our eleemosynary aid we should raise the standard have occurred before now in which the certificates of medical and tone of morality amongst the working classes, and preventt practitioners have been forged, and the ends of justice thereby them from running into pauperism at every gust of sickness, frustrated. The course pursued by the commissioner was for we have panperized many a thousand by the readiness to be offensive to Dr. Drury.-SuB. not intended with which we have taught them to accept our charity. Our evidently En. L. would no longer become the resting-place of the hospitals lazy, and their funds swallowed up by the dissipated. Dives would make way for Lazarus, and the crumbs which have THE COUNCIL OF THE COLLEGE OF SURGEONS. fallen from the rich man’s table would be consumed by deTo the Editor of THE LANCET. serving objects. Alas, what dreadful waste does an unpaid SIR,-I differ from a "Fellow by Examination" and a medical officer bring upon these institutions! For the goodwill of a few favoured servants of the subscribers, he squanders " Fellow of the College," (vide THE LANCET, June llth and with unsparing hand quinine, mutton chops, flagons of wine, 18th,) and think the proceeding infamous, when I remember and seas of Barclay’s beer. Chlorotic serving-maids are re- how and for what reasons the fellowship was originally contained for months under treatment; fever cases are poisoned ferred ; first, with rare modesty and great personal considerawith wine; and syphilitic clerks are sarzse-iodided to their tion, on the Council by the Council, then on their friends, heart’s content. The workhouse wards are all the time preg- without in either case fee, examination, or trouble. It cernant with diseases of the most dreadful caste, which are all tainly appears to me, after this, infamous to compel old ill-physicked and ill-fed, because abandoned by physicians members of the Collpge of Surgeons to beg for signatures and whose only care is to get recommendation where they cannot pay £10-for what ? not honour, but simply the power of electing men to look after their property. No doubt, the obtain pay. In thus animadverting upon our hospital system, I mean no "Fellow by Examination" has just cause for complaint; but, with the College antecedents, and an unjust, un-English job disrespect to the numerous highly-gifted and laborious gentle- before his eyes, how came he to go there for such a thing? men who for the most part occupy the posts in these institu‘‘ tions. They would do well, if an organization is effected, , ]Perhaps " a Fellow by Examination," and a Fellow of the the will blackball who received boon, evidently College," voluntarily to come forward and tender all the advice which candidates for re-election until full justice is done to every their experience affords. Some I dare say have done well in giving gratuitous advice; but others can tell a different tale- member of the ICollege. remain, Sir, your obedient servant, a tale of midnight toil, and broken purse, and wearied spirit.‘ A MEMBER OF SEVERAL YEARS’ Abolish the system, and they would find much glory in the 1853. STANDING, WHO BEGRUDGES June, act: they would see a noble and glorious profession spring PAYING £10 FOR HIS RIGHT. from the Slough of Despond, and mount to a pinnacle far the and publish the genuine has P.S.--Do, than other attained. We should Sir, Council, analyze profession higher any yet not be advertised for by a Chorley clergyman, or held so cheap fellows, that we in the country may employ them. by Reigate guardians. We can challenge a Chorley divine, in conclusion, and say that no minister of the Gospel ever COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH, JUNE 22. performed his duty so well as the meanest Poor-law doctor. I cannot forbear to retaliate at this indignity. A lover of our (Sittings at Nisi Prius, at Westminster, before Lord Chief Justice Church and its worship, when carried on without absurdity Campbell and a Special Jury.) and nonsensical whimsicality, I cannot, connected as I have SLANDER.-FENNELL V. ADAMS (CLERK). been for years with Union practice, let this opportunity slip THIS was an action to recover damages for certain slanderous without saying that the sick-beds of the poor are abominably to have been uttered by the defendant, and comneglected by the village pastors. Thousands have died without words alleged plained of by the plaintiff as prejudicial to his professional a visit or a friendly word at parting; young women with a frail accouchement unreproved lie in again; bereaved mothers character. The defendant pleaded " Not Guilty," and justification." pray for a second loss, for they have no one to tell them of Mr. M. Chambers, Q.C., Mr. Sergeant Wilkins, and Mr. the value of each human life; and to the spiritual destitution of the poor in sickness can be traced much of their future Peterdorffs appeared for the plaintiff; the Attorney-General, Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., and Mr. Hall were for the defence. degradation and abasement. Mr. Chambers stated the case, from which it appeared that Sat verbum sapientibus. the plaintiff is a surgeon at Wimbledon, and is medical officer I remain, Sir, with every respect, of an institution there called " The Maternal Society," of which Yours obediently, the wife of the Rev. Mr. Adams, the defendant, was the treasurer. MEDICUS Trinity-street, June, 1851. The charge against the plaintiff was one seriously calculated to affect his professional reputation. The words complained of were to the effect, that the plaintiff bad, in many cases, been very MEDICAL CERTIFICATES. negligent in his attendance upon various females in their period To the Editor of THE LANCET. of labour, in the institution, and that several children had been wS’IR,-On Friday last a friend of mine was attacked with consequently strangled in their birth. To refute those charges, the learned gentleman called English cholera, and having a witnesses’ summons to attend The plaintiff, Mr. Edward Fennell,-who deposed that he is the Court of Bankruptcy, he sent a certificate from Dr. Drury to that effect, which was only then received on an affidavit a surgeon, residing at Wimbledon, and had been pupil of Dr. being sworn and annexed that it was the certificate of Dr. Stevenson and of Dr. Sweetham. In 1834 he purchased Dr. Drury, who was a physician living in Albion-street, and was Wright’s practice at Wimbledon, and paid £1000 for it, and he was subsequently appointed to the Kingston Union, and to the Mr. B.’s regular medical attendant. A further summons was then granted for the Tuesday " Wimbledon Maternal Society." In 1849 he received a letter following, upon which occasion Dr. Drury’s patient was much from the Hon. Mrs. Adams, treasurer of the Maternal Society, worse, and a certificate to the effect that he was still and wife of the defendant, who is curate of Wimhledon. The suffering from English cholera, which was then complicated letter contained general complaints, charging him (plaintiff) with with dysentery, was sent to the Bankruptcy Court, which neglect of the female patients, but not naming any particular case. Commissioner Fonblanque refused to take, and actually granted He called on Mrs. Adams in consequence, and she then mentioned the warrant for arresting a man dangerously ill! saying he case of Mrs. Gregory, who was the wife of the coachman of ____________

the

21 Mr. Lefevre. He (plaintiff) attended her in 1848 or 1849. She had an attack of puerperal fever after the confinement, which is the most severe complaint with which medical men have to contend. He felt it his duty to call in Mr. Parrott, and they consulted together as to the treatment. She sunk under the complaint. Mr. Lefevre expressed his satisfaction with the treatment. There had been 385 cases of midwifery under his (plaintiff’s) charge, aud he had never lost any other patient. In the case of Mrs. Elsley, Mrs. Adams refused to pay him his fee of half a guinea. He wrote to her for an explanation, and received a letter in reply, which stated that, according to the regulations of the institution, a surgeon was not entitled to his fee unless he attended the case personally. He had attended Mrs. Elsley, who was the wife of a labourer, in three confinements, and on the occasion in question Mrs. Riley was her nurse. He went to Mrs. Elsley immediately when he was called, and was told that his services would be required. He was at the time in attendance on a child named Roy, who was severely ill. When he arrived at Mrs. Elsley’s he remained an hour in attendance, and finding the case was not pressing, he left, and went to see the child Roy, whose residence was within sight of Elsley’s house. He (plaintiff) left word where he was going, and returned in twenty-five minutes to Mrs. Elsley’s. He then found the child born, and did what was necessary. There was a nurse and a midwife there at the time. The patient did well. He issued a circular that it had never occurred to him to have a child ’’ strangled in its birth." He had had cases of flooding of blood, but never lost those cases. Plaintiff subsequently called to see Mr. Adams, but was informed by Mrs. Adams that he did not wish to be mixed up in the

I

case.

damages. The jury conferred together, and returned a verdict for the plaintiff on the plea of Justification;" anda for the defendant on the ground that the communication was a privileged communication," and therefore not a guilty one. Lord Campbell.-I am perfectly satisfied, gentlemen, with your verdict, and I am happy to say, that by it both parties go

in cross-examination, deposed that he had no recollection of the nurse at Elsley’s having said to him when he was leaving-" I hope you are not going to leave me, as. you did the last time?" When he returned to Elsley’s, he had only to remove the placenta. He did not hear Mrs. Elsley makeany declaration, and he asked several women whether there was any truth in the statement; and he subsequently drew up an official declaration, according to their statements, for them to sign. He did not tell Mrs. Frost that she would be punished if she refused to make the declaration before a magistrate. He attended Caroline Chester in two confinements, but could not recollect that he was present at the first of the births. At the second birth he did not remove the placenta. He was at the time in attendance upon another patient, who had a prior claim upon him, and he left to attend her before he removed the placenta. The woman might have said upon his leaving-,, Who shall we get ?" and he might have said to her-,, Who you can." When he returned, the placenta was still adhering. They called him up the next morning at half-past five o’clock, and told him the woman was suffering, and asked him to give something to relieve her. He gave something, and called about nine o’clock, and removed the placenta. The plaintiff was then, in continuation of the cross-examination, questioned as to his attendance on Ann Dossett, Julia Rapley, Sarah Nicholls, Elizabeth Phipps, Mrs. Finch (who was twentyfive hours in labour), Mrs. Nicklebury, Mary Anne Frost, Mrs. Jordan (an Irishwoman), Mrs. Croach, and Mrs. Rapley. In those cases the complaints principally were, that he (the plaintiff ) was absent when the children were born, and a charge of neglect was imputed to him by the defendant’s wife, and a further charge, that he (the plaintiff)was regardless in such cases of the claims and condition of the poor. Mr. Savory, Mary Savory, and other witnesses, including the late curate of Wimbledon, gave testimony in favour of the plaintiff, in his professional and private character. The Attorney-General addressed the jury for the defence, and submitted that any allusions made to the plaintiff by the defendant were made at a meeting of the lady-subscribers of the Maternal Society, at which that gentleman presided as chairman, and that they were of the nature of a " privileged communication," and as such not actionable. The learned gentleman denied that the defendant had expressed any charge against the plaintiff about children strangled in their birth. In support of the defence, Caroline Chester, Mary Preedy, Elizabeth Elsley, Maria Riley, Mary Stacey, Sarah Nicholls, Elizabeth Phipps, Mary Anne Elms, Mary Ann Hicklebury, Mary Anne Frost, the Rev. Mr. Adams (the defendant), and Mrs. Holroyd, wife of Mr. Commissioner Holroyd, who deposed to what passed at the meeting of lady subscribers to the Maternal Society, of which she was one, but had no recollection of anything having been said at that meeting by the defendant about strangled children. The other female witnesses were principally those who had been confined in the institution. Drs. Arnott and Murphy gave medical testimony. Dr. Tyler Smith was also subpoenaed.

Plaintiff,

-

-

-

Montagu Chambers replied on the evidence, and urged jury that the communication casting imputations on plaintiff was not a privileged communication, that it was a

Mr.

upon the

the

communication

calculated to do the most serious injury to the plaintiff, and that he (the plaintiff) was therefore entitled to reparation in damages at their hands. Lord Campbell summed up. The case was certainly a most painful one on the one side and the other. The witnesses on both sides had conducted themselves in a most respectable and

creditable manner; and it did not appear that there had ever been a quarrel between the plaintiff and defendant; neither did it appear that the defendant had ever entertained ill will to the Plaintiff, it appeared, had attended, between four and hundred midwifery cases in the course of his practice, and had never, he deposed, lost but one case, in which death resulted from puerperal fever setting in. And certainly with regard to the cases of the female witnesses, who had that day been examined, there did not appear to be any serious amount of evidence of neglect on his part. He attended when called, and perhaps had other pressing cases when he left to go elsewhere. The questions for the consideration of the jury would be-whether of the defendant was a "privileged communithe statement cation," and whether he had made out his pleas of " Not Guilty" and "Justification." If they found that it was "a privileged communication," they would pronounce the defendant " Not Guilty," and the plaintiff would not be entitled to any damages; and if they found that defendant had not made out his plea of " justification," they would then give a verdict for the plaintiff, which would entitle him to the costs of the trial, but not to

plaintiff. five

11

out of court

The trial

o’clock.

with their characters re-established. occupied the whole of the day, up to past

seven

Medical News. ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS.-At the usual quarterly meeting of the Comitia Majora, held on Saturday, June 25th, the following gentlemen, having passed the necessary examinations for diploma, were admitted Members of the

College: DR. EvANS, Birmingham. DR. HALLEY, Queen Anne-street, Cavendish-square. DR. JENCKEN, The Cape. DR. MAXWELL, Worcester. DR. OGLE, St. Catherine’s-hall, Cambridge. DR.

At the

SYMONDS, Clifton.

same

DR. DR. DR. DR.

Comitia-

BARKER, Grosvenor-street; NAIRNE, Charles-street, Berkeley-square; OWEN REES, Cork-street; SETH THOMPSON, Lower Seymour-street;

’

chosen Censors for the ensuing year: and DR. BROWN, Hill-street, Berkeley-square; DR. MILROY, Fitzroy-square; DR. SIBSON, Brook-street; DR. TAYLOR, St. James’s-terrace, Regent’s-park;

were

’

i

elected Fellows of the

College. ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.-The following gentlemen, having undergone the necessary examinations for the diploma, were admitted Members of the College at the meeting of the Court of Examiners on the 24th ult.:BAKER, SLADE INNES, Hayford Warren, Oxfordshire. BARKER, JOSEPH, Durham. GRIGGS, WILLIAM, Little Easton, Dunmow, Essex. KNAGGS, WILLIAM ANGELO, Kensington. PENDLEBURY, WILLIAM HITCHIN, Bolton, Lancashire.

were

PRATT, HENRY, Montreal, Canada. SMART, ROBERT BATH, Balsham, Cambridgeshire. STURKEY, HENRY GEORGE, Fachwen, TregynoD, Mont,

gomeryshire.

TUTTIETT, HARRY BARRINGTON, Ventnor, Isle of Wight.

,