- Email: [email protected]
CRIER AND WIFE v. HOPE AND CURRIE.
783 of the horse contained abundance of a microbe which proved fatal to the guinea-pig and through this to the rabbit, the microbe in small doses (a single C010DY) causing death in four days with pseudo-membranes on the viscera, with abundance of the same microbe in the pseudomembranes, the heart’s blood, and the spleen. The microbe, for which I propose the term "bacillus equiresembles in shape and size the bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis (A. Pfeiffer), possessing all intermediate shapes between a coccus and a cylindrical, almost filamentous bacillus and being non-motile and not liquefying gelatin, but in action it obviously differs from it, the former causing acute illness and not producing the well-known necrotic nodules in the spleen, the liver, the lung, and the lymph glands characterising the action of the bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis. The bacillus equi grows well at 37° C. and at from 20° to 21° C. it forms round, more or less flat, moist, translucent colonies both on agar and on gelatin ; it grows slower and is distinctly more translucent than bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis. The bacillus
pathogenic and
the infection.
This statement was untrue. Though there lack of skill on Dr. Currie’s part he that if a medical man attended an and then went to a co-nfinement he did so at
suggestion of (counsel) maintained was no
infectious case his own rirk. The first witness called was Miss SUSAN BROWN, a certificated nurse, who attended Mrs. Crier in 1903 for her first confinement and also in November, 1904. The witness stated that the latter confinement was normal save for a slight rupture of the perineum which required one stitch. The defendant, Dr. Currie, washed his hands in water, then corrosive sublimate, and lastly in lysol prior to examining the patient. He also removed his coat and was supplied with an apron. He used a nail-brush. Mrs. "White leg"was a complication. Crier had suffered for some time previously from varicose veins. On Christmas Day Mrs. Crier’s condition had so much improved that she was allowed up, but the next day she had a relapse which was followed by three rigors on Dec 30th, Jan. 6th, and Jan. lltb. On Jan. 18th Dr. G. E. equi is practically gram negative; the oval forms, both Herman was called in and opened a pelvic abscess, recovery of culture and of the animal tissues, show bipolar following, though nurses were in attendance until April. staining with methylene blue. The bacillus equi does The witness stated that she asked Dr. Currie in November not alter neutral red broth, litmus milk, lactosepeptone, as to the source of the infection and that he had replied, " I or litmus glucose bile salts (MacConkey fluid). In alkaline have not had a fever case for some time." beef broth it forms slight but uniform turbidity ; no pellicle. Mr. CRIER stated that on his arrival Dr. Currie removed Bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis leaves the fluid fairly clear but his overcoat and mufrer. After scarlet fever had been forms copiously granules and flocculi with pellicle on the diagnosed Dr. Carrie stated he " was not attending any surface (where the fluid touches the glass). The bacillus equi fever cases " and was at a loss to account for it. Mrs. Crier’s does not form spores and is devitalised by complete drying. illness was notified on Nov. 21st and on the following day Mr. Dr. Mervyn H. Gordon has kindly subjected in comparative Hope, the medical officer of health, called and made inquiries series both the bacillus equi and the bacillus pseudo-tubercu- of the witness. Dr. Currie’s statement was repeated to losis to the various sugar tests and he finds as the chief and his partner who expressed the opinion that he (Dr. Carrie) constant differences that while bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis could not have properly understood the query for he (Dr. forms acid from maltose and not from saccharose the bacillus Currie) was attending infectious cases. This interview was equi behaves in a contrary way, inasmuch as it forms acid recounted to Dr. Carrie who remaiked, " He is a funny chap; from saccharose but not from maltose. you may take it from me that I have not had any." The As already mentioned, the action of the bacillus pseudo- witness stated that he had had inquiries made, with the tuberculosis and of the bacillus equi is fundamentally result that he learnt that Dr. Currie had certified patients as different. As a further distinction may be mentioned the suffering from scarlet fever on Oct. 15th and 17th, and fact that while bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis retains its patho- Nov. 14th and 15th. When confronted with this evidence genic action unimpaired in subcultures after many months’ Dr. Currie is alleged to have observed, " What is a doctor to transference the bacillus equi rapidly loses its virulence in do ?" The plaintiff stated that his claim for special damage subcultures. The microbe of fowl cholera, with which amounted to !:.500, incurred by out-of-pocket expenses and the bacillus equi has certain morphological and cultural loss of business, the latter being brought about by his concharacters (including indol formation in broth) in common, stant and necessary attendance at home. differs from our microbe in (a) the bacillus of fowl cholera Cross-examined, he stated that he kept three servants, is virulent for mice and non-virulent for guinea-pigs, the procured his goods from Harrod’s Stores, and his milk from bacillus equi is virulent for the guinea-pig and non-pathogenic a neighbouring farm. He went to business at Chiswick for mice ; and (b) the bacillus of fowl cholera curdles milk partly by train and electric tram. and reduces litmus and the bacillus equi does neither, Mrs. MARY CRIER said that she was a nurse for five years milk remains fluid and litmus remains uncharged. prior to her marriage. Directly Dr. Currie came into her St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. : room on Nov. 15th, some time about 7 or 8 P.M., he shook her hands prior to washing his own. He told her that he had no fever cases on her inquiring as to the source of her infection. After her first confinement in 1903 she had been in CRIER AND WIFE v. HOPE AND CURRIE. indifferent health. Mrs. ELIZABETH MILLER, a labourer’s wife, stated that (Specially reported for THE LANCET.) Dr. Currie visited her two children who were suffering from scarlet fever on Nov. 15th, about 6 P.M. IN the King’s Bench Division on March 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, Dr. CHARLES ERNEST GODDARD, medical officer of health and 8th, before Mr. Justice A. T. LAWRENCE and a special of Wembley, and Mr. HERBERT EDWARD COUNSELL, unwise for medical jury, Mr. William Fletcher Crier, an estate agent residing at f Oxford, gave evidence and deemed it within cases of confinement so short a Greenford, near Ealing, and his wife, Mrs. Mary Crier, sued men toasattend Dr. Currie had done after visiting a scarlet period Mr. George Hope and Dr. George Burnett Currie, partner, fever case, " even after taking proper precautions." It was risk that members of the profession should not run except practising in Ealing and neighbourhood, for damage", alleging that by reason of the latter defendant’s negligence .n the greatest emergency. The latter witness thought the Mrs. Crier had become infected with scarlet fever during her septic trouble which culminated in the pelvic abscess to be the scarlet fever infection. confinement. Mr. GILL, K.C., and Mr. A. FARLEIGH repre- iue sented the plaintiff ; Mr. MCCALL, K.C., and Mr. NEILSON Mr. MCCALL, in outlining the defendants’ case, remarked appeared for the defendants, who denied the charge of lpon the amount of prejudice that had been introduced into he case. The only questions for thejury to consider were : negligence. In opening the case Mr. GILL stated that the plaintiffs were 1) Did Dr. Currie convey infection to Mrs. Crier? and (2) married early in 1903 and went to Greenford in 1904. The )id he as a medical man in the circumstances exercise husband engaged Dr. Currie to attend his wife in her second easonable care ? In his evidence Dr. CURRIE stated that he visited the confinement, whiuh took place on Nov. 15th, 1904. No complications took place until Nov. 18th, when the patient’s tillers’ house on Nov. 15th but had no necessity to touch temperature began to rise, eventually reaching 105° F. On he boy, having diagnosed his condition on the previous day. the following day a scarlet rash appeared on the body in Returning home he found a telegram summoning him to addition to a sore-throat and on Nov. 20th Dr. Currie rreenford. Thereupon he washed and disinfected his hands pronounced Mrs. Crier to be suffering from scarlet fever. nd arms with lysol and changed his coat prior to driving the Her condition for a time was very critical. Dr. Currie said wo and a half miles to Greenford. Before examining Mrs. that neither he nor his partner had any fever patients in their frier he had thoroughly disinfected himself as stated by practice and therefore he could not account for the origin of furse Brown. He also used rubber sleeves to cover his shirt.
to
784 These had been sterilised previously by boiling. He denied the statements he was alleged to have made to Mr. and Mrs. Crier and Miss Brown. What he said to the husband was, " At present I am not attending any case nor do I know of He diagnosed the " white-leg " complicaone in Hanwell." tion on Nov. 29th. He did not consider it was brought on by sepsis as stated by the plaintiffs’ medical witnesses. He considered the patient’s relapse after Christmas to be wholly distinct from the scarlet fever-only a local disturbance. He thought it practically unnecessary to request another medical man to take the confinement case for him. Between Nov. 15th and Feb 3rd he had attended 32 confinements and had paid 311 ordinary visits. None of these had developed scarlet fever. Cross-examined, Dr. CURRIE said he had told Mr. Crier the truth-though perhaps not the whole truth. He would call it an equivocation. In November he and Mr. Hope were not on speaking terms, both being desirous of dissolving the partnership. The medical profession drew a distinction between "attending"and "seeing"" a patient, but the witness admitted that there was no difference in the risk. The septicmmia which Mrs. Crier suffered from was not
puerperal.
Dr. HERMAN thought that Dr. Currie had taken all the He did not consider the pelvic necessary. abscess which he opened on Jan. 18th, 1905, was due to the Neither did he agree with Dr. scarlet fever infection. Galabin’s dictum that parturient women were more liable to become infected by the fever. The septicaemia was not of the puerperal variety. Dr. WILLIAM HUNTER, physician to the London Fever Hospital, agreed generally with the evidence given by the last witness. In his opinion medical men did not carry infection. He admitted the possibility of the connexion between the scarlet fever in November and the later trouble in January. Cross-examined he said that changing clothes and the taking of a bath were reasonable precautions but thorough disinfection was the essential factor. Mr. LEWIS DRANSFIELD BROWN, visiting physician to the Ealing Isolation Hospital, considered the precautions taken by Dr. Currie to be reasonable. Professor HERBERT R. SPENCER, obstetric physician to the University College Hospital, considered the precautions taken by Dr. Currie effective. He agreed with the suggestion that there might be sometimes a connexion between " white leg" and scarlet fever, but in the present case the predisposition possessed by the patient to varicose veins would probably exclude scarlet fever as being the cause of the " white leg." Dr. WALTER SMITH considered the precautions taken sufficient. He stated that if a medical man thought there was the slightest risk to his patient he ought to get another medical man to go to the confinement. He offered the opinion that pork was a frequent carrier of scarlet fever. The learned JUDGE, in the course of his summing up, said that the public were not entitled to expect more than ordinary and reasonable care from a medical exceptional standard of skill could not be man. An The questions for the jury’s decision were those required. counsel. In his opinion it put to them by the defendants’ " was very much akin to straining at a gnat," to lay it down as a rule that a medical man, aware that he had been engaged for a confinement-the date of which was by no means certain-should refrain from visiting other patients. As regards the conveyance of infection Mr. Gill had treated it as a certainty, but from the evidence given on both sides the only certain fact seemed to be that one person could convey it to another. It was quite possible in the present case that the patient might have derived the infection from other sources than from the medical man, for it had been stated that an epidemic was at the time ’raging in the neighbourhood." Besides, the mere fact that they (the jury) thought Dr. Carrie communicated the infection was not sufficient in itself to make them come to the conclusion that he had not taken due care. He failed to see any reason for a medical man to inform a husband of his attendance upon an infectious case prior to attending the wife, for in his (the medical man’s) opinion he had taken steps to render himself free from the risk of carrying infection. To his (the judge’s) mind to go and tell the patient or friends was displaying a lack of self-respect and courage. Neither did he consider it an act of negligence for a medical man not to call in another practitioner. Dealing with the
precautions
,
.
contention that Dr. Carrie should have completely changed his clothes the judge opined that it was very impracticable, supposing an epidemic was prevailing. The alleged conversations were important if they went to show that Dr. Carrie was conscious that he had been less careful than he ought to have been and was therefore less candid to Mr. Crier about the scarlet fever cases which he had attended. Continuing, his lordship said that all the evidence given by the witnesses went to show that lying-in women were not more liable than others to scarlet fever infection. This had a strong bearing on the subject of proper precautions if the defendant adopted this view in taking precautions before going to a confinement. His lordship said that contrary views had been cited from text-books, written by living authors, on behalf of the plaintiffs but such opinions were not evidence. The jury found a general verdict to the effect that Dr. Currie had taken the usual precautions." Mr. GILL asked his lordship to request thejury to answer the question as to whether Dr. Currie had not committed a legal assault upon Mrs. Crier on or about Nov. 20th, 1904, by examining her after leading her to believe he was not attending any scarlet fever patients. After some deliberation the jury intimated their inability to agree and were dischared. Mr. MCCALL : I ask for judgment for the defendants. His LORDSHIP: Yes. Mr. FARLEIGH: Is your lordship going to separate the claims, the jury having disagreed upon one part ? His LORDSHIP : On reflection I do not think I ought to have allowed the second question to go to the jury. A stay of execution with view to an appeal will be granted on the usual terms.
Looking Back. FROM
THE LANCET, SATURDAY, March 15th, 1828. FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. *MM. BRESCHET and RASPAIL have lately been engaged investigating the structure of the nerves, with a view to ascertain whether there were canals, according to the opinions of the late M. Bogros, permeating the:r centre or not ? The conclusion at which these anatomists have arrived is, that there are no canals in the centre of the nerves, and consequently that it is not by virtue of any fluid contained in them that the powers of sensation and voluntary motion are performed. In all the cases where the attempt was made to inject mercury into the nerve, this fluid either escaped between the loose cellular membrane and the neurilema, or the neurilema and the nerves ; and in no instance continuously through the centre of the nerve. in
As JOE BURNS was bustling through the streets one day this week, he was overtaken by an old colleague, who, after the usual friendly salutation, complimented him on his late success in joke and pun. "Mere trifles, Sir," said JOE, " struck offat the moment ; cost me no trouble ; not worthy of your attention." It was soon apparent that the friend was quizzing, and that he did not believe JOE to be the real author of the good things that pass under his name. The latter was nettled at this; for, though very good natured, and affecting indifference on the point, he is extremely sensitive whenever his reputation as a wit is called in question. "Well,said the friend, ’’you may easily settle the point; make a joke directly ; if it be good, I will give up JoE took him my doubts, and the effort shall not be lost." at his word, and said with incredible promptitude, " Tell me, Sir, why Ben Travers is like the glorious orb of day."’ This apparently incongruous comparison of the source of light to the great master of the dark style, completely puzzled the doubter ; the more he reflected on the unfathomable depths of this profound author, the less was he able to discover in him the likeness of anything luminous, and he soon gave up the attempt. "Why," said JOE, with a look of exultation over the confoanded sceptic, " did not Ben rise in the east, and has he not gone down in the west ?"
* Repertoire d’Anatomie,
tom. iv., p. 4.
pathogenic and
the infection.
This statement was untrue. Though there lack of skill on Dr. Currie’s part he that if a medical man attended an and then went to a co-nfinement he did so at
suggestion of (counsel) maintained was no
infectious case his own rirk. The first witness called was Miss SUSAN BROWN, a certificated nurse, who attended Mrs. Crier in 1903 for her first confinement and also in November, 1904. The witness stated that the latter confinement was normal save for a slight rupture of the perineum which required one stitch. The defendant, Dr. Currie, washed his hands in water, then corrosive sublimate, and lastly in lysol prior to examining the patient. He also removed his coat and was supplied with an apron. He used a nail-brush. Mrs. "White leg"was a complication. Crier had suffered for some time previously from varicose veins. On Christmas Day Mrs. Crier’s condition had so much improved that she was allowed up, but the next day she had a relapse which was followed by three rigors on Dec 30th, Jan. 6th, and Jan. lltb. On Jan. 18th Dr. G. E. equi is practically gram negative; the oval forms, both Herman was called in and opened a pelvic abscess, recovery of culture and of the animal tissues, show bipolar following, though nurses were in attendance until April. staining with methylene blue. The bacillus equi does The witness stated that she asked Dr. Currie in November not alter neutral red broth, litmus milk, lactosepeptone, as to the source of the infection and that he had replied, " I or litmus glucose bile salts (MacConkey fluid). In alkaline have not had a fever case for some time." beef broth it forms slight but uniform turbidity ; no pellicle. Mr. CRIER stated that on his arrival Dr. Currie removed Bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis leaves the fluid fairly clear but his overcoat and mufrer. After scarlet fever had been forms copiously granules and flocculi with pellicle on the diagnosed Dr. Carrie stated he " was not attending any surface (where the fluid touches the glass). The bacillus equi fever cases " and was at a loss to account for it. Mrs. Crier’s does not form spores and is devitalised by complete drying. illness was notified on Nov. 21st and on the following day Mr. Dr. Mervyn H. Gordon has kindly subjected in comparative Hope, the medical officer of health, called and made inquiries series both the bacillus equi and the bacillus pseudo-tubercu- of the witness. Dr. Currie’s statement was repeated to losis to the various sugar tests and he finds as the chief and his partner who expressed the opinion that he (Dr. Carrie) constant differences that while bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis could not have properly understood the query for he (Dr. forms acid from maltose and not from saccharose the bacillus Currie) was attending infectious cases. This interview was equi behaves in a contrary way, inasmuch as it forms acid recounted to Dr. Carrie who remaiked, " He is a funny chap; from saccharose but not from maltose. you may take it from me that I have not had any." The As already mentioned, the action of the bacillus pseudo- witness stated that he had had inquiries made, with the tuberculosis and of the bacillus equi is fundamentally result that he learnt that Dr. Currie had certified patients as different. As a further distinction may be mentioned the suffering from scarlet fever on Oct. 15th and 17th, and fact that while bacillus pseudo-tuberculosis retains its patho- Nov. 14th and 15th. When confronted with this evidence genic action unimpaired in subcultures after many months’ Dr. Currie is alleged to have observed, " What is a doctor to transference the bacillus equi rapidly loses its virulence in do ?" The plaintiff stated that his claim for special damage subcultures. The microbe of fowl cholera, with which amounted to !:.500, incurred by out-of-pocket expenses and the bacillus equi has certain morphological and cultural loss of business, the latter being brought about by his concharacters (including indol formation in broth) in common, stant and necessary attendance at home. differs from our microbe in (a) the bacillus of fowl cholera Cross-examined, he stated that he kept three servants, is virulent for mice and non-virulent for guinea-pigs, the procured his goods from Harrod’s Stores, and his milk from bacillus equi is virulent for the guinea-pig and non-pathogenic a neighbouring farm. He went to business at Chiswick for mice ; and (b) the bacillus of fowl cholera curdles milk partly by train and electric tram. and reduces litmus and the bacillus equi does neither, Mrs. MARY CRIER said that she was a nurse for five years milk remains fluid and litmus remains uncharged. prior to her marriage. Directly Dr. Currie came into her St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. : room on Nov. 15th, some time about 7 or 8 P.M., he shook her hands prior to washing his own. He told her that he had no fever cases on her inquiring as to the source of her infection. After her first confinement in 1903 she had been in CRIER AND WIFE v. HOPE AND CURRIE. indifferent health. Mrs. ELIZABETH MILLER, a labourer’s wife, stated that (Specially reported for THE LANCET.) Dr. Currie visited her two children who were suffering from scarlet fever on Nov. 15th, about 6 P.M. IN the King’s Bench Division on March 2nd, 5th, 6th, 7th, Dr. CHARLES ERNEST GODDARD, medical officer of health and 8th, before Mr. Justice A. T. LAWRENCE and a special of Wembley, and Mr. HERBERT EDWARD COUNSELL, unwise for medical jury, Mr. William Fletcher Crier, an estate agent residing at f Oxford, gave evidence and deemed it within cases of confinement so short a Greenford, near Ealing, and his wife, Mrs. Mary Crier, sued men toasattend Dr. Currie had done after visiting a scarlet period Mr. George Hope and Dr. George Burnett Currie, partner, fever case, " even after taking proper precautions." It was risk that members of the profession should not run except practising in Ealing and neighbourhood, for damage", alleging that by reason of the latter defendant’s negligence .n the greatest emergency. The latter witness thought the Mrs. Crier had become infected with scarlet fever during her septic trouble which culminated in the pelvic abscess to be the scarlet fever infection. confinement. Mr. GILL, K.C., and Mr. A. FARLEIGH repre- iue sented the plaintiff ; Mr. MCCALL, K.C., and Mr. NEILSON Mr. MCCALL, in outlining the defendants’ case, remarked appeared for the defendants, who denied the charge of lpon the amount of prejudice that had been introduced into he case. The only questions for thejury to consider were : negligence. In opening the case Mr. GILL stated that the plaintiffs were 1) Did Dr. Currie convey infection to Mrs. Crier? and (2) married early in 1903 and went to Greenford in 1904. The )id he as a medical man in the circumstances exercise husband engaged Dr. Currie to attend his wife in her second easonable care ? In his evidence Dr. CURRIE stated that he visited the confinement, whiuh took place on Nov. 15th, 1904. No complications took place until Nov. 18th, when the patient’s tillers’ house on Nov. 15th but had no necessity to touch temperature began to rise, eventually reaching 105° F. On he boy, having diagnosed his condition on the previous day. the following day a scarlet rash appeared on the body in Returning home he found a telegram summoning him to addition to a sore-throat and on Nov. 20th Dr. Currie rreenford. Thereupon he washed and disinfected his hands pronounced Mrs. Crier to be suffering from scarlet fever. nd arms with lysol and changed his coat prior to driving the Her condition for a time was very critical. Dr. Currie said wo and a half miles to Greenford. Before examining Mrs. that neither he nor his partner had any fever patients in their frier he had thoroughly disinfected himself as stated by practice and therefore he could not account for the origin of furse Brown. He also used rubber sleeves to cover his shirt.
to
784 These had been sterilised previously by boiling. He denied the statements he was alleged to have made to Mr. and Mrs. Crier and Miss Brown. What he said to the husband was, " At present I am not attending any case nor do I know of He diagnosed the " white-leg " complicaone in Hanwell." tion on Nov. 29th. He did not consider it was brought on by sepsis as stated by the plaintiffs’ medical witnesses. He considered the patient’s relapse after Christmas to be wholly distinct from the scarlet fever-only a local disturbance. He thought it practically unnecessary to request another medical man to take the confinement case for him. Between Nov. 15th and Feb 3rd he had attended 32 confinements and had paid 311 ordinary visits. None of these had developed scarlet fever. Cross-examined, Dr. CURRIE said he had told Mr. Crier the truth-though perhaps not the whole truth. He would call it an equivocation. In November he and Mr. Hope were not on speaking terms, both being desirous of dissolving the partnership. The medical profession drew a distinction between "attending"and "seeing"" a patient, but the witness admitted that there was no difference in the risk. The septicmmia which Mrs. Crier suffered from was not
puerperal.
Dr. HERMAN thought that Dr. Currie had taken all the He did not consider the pelvic necessary. abscess which he opened on Jan. 18th, 1905, was due to the Neither did he agree with Dr. scarlet fever infection. Galabin’s dictum that parturient women were more liable to become infected by the fever. The septicaemia was not of the puerperal variety. Dr. WILLIAM HUNTER, physician to the London Fever Hospital, agreed generally with the evidence given by the last witness. In his opinion medical men did not carry infection. He admitted the possibility of the connexion between the scarlet fever in November and the later trouble in January. Cross-examined he said that changing clothes and the taking of a bath were reasonable precautions but thorough disinfection was the essential factor. Mr. LEWIS DRANSFIELD BROWN, visiting physician to the Ealing Isolation Hospital, considered the precautions taken by Dr. Currie to be reasonable. Professor HERBERT R. SPENCER, obstetric physician to the University College Hospital, considered the precautions taken by Dr. Currie effective. He agreed with the suggestion that there might be sometimes a connexion between " white leg" and scarlet fever, but in the present case the predisposition possessed by the patient to varicose veins would probably exclude scarlet fever as being the cause of the " white leg." Dr. WALTER SMITH considered the precautions taken sufficient. He stated that if a medical man thought there was the slightest risk to his patient he ought to get another medical man to go to the confinement. He offered the opinion that pork was a frequent carrier of scarlet fever. The learned JUDGE, in the course of his summing up, said that the public were not entitled to expect more than ordinary and reasonable care from a medical exceptional standard of skill could not be man. An The questions for the jury’s decision were those required. counsel. In his opinion it put to them by the defendants’ " was very much akin to straining at a gnat," to lay it down as a rule that a medical man, aware that he had been engaged for a confinement-the date of which was by no means certain-should refrain from visiting other patients. As regards the conveyance of infection Mr. Gill had treated it as a certainty, but from the evidence given on both sides the only certain fact seemed to be that one person could convey it to another. It was quite possible in the present case that the patient might have derived the infection from other sources than from the medical man, for it had been stated that an epidemic was at the time ’raging in the neighbourhood." Besides, the mere fact that they (the jury) thought Dr. Carrie communicated the infection was not sufficient in itself to make them come to the conclusion that he had not taken due care. He failed to see any reason for a medical man to inform a husband of his attendance upon an infectious case prior to attending the wife, for in his (the medical man’s) opinion he had taken steps to render himself free from the risk of carrying infection. To his (the judge’s) mind to go and tell the patient or friends was displaying a lack of self-respect and courage. Neither did he consider it an act of negligence for a medical man not to call in another practitioner. Dealing with the
precautions
,
.
contention that Dr. Carrie should have completely changed his clothes the judge opined that it was very impracticable, supposing an epidemic was prevailing. The alleged conversations were important if they went to show that Dr. Carrie was conscious that he had been less careful than he ought to have been and was therefore less candid to Mr. Crier about the scarlet fever cases which he had attended. Continuing, his lordship said that all the evidence given by the witnesses went to show that lying-in women were not more liable than others to scarlet fever infection. This had a strong bearing on the subject of proper precautions if the defendant adopted this view in taking precautions before going to a confinement. His lordship said that contrary views had been cited from text-books, written by living authors, on behalf of the plaintiffs but such opinions were not evidence. The jury found a general verdict to the effect that Dr. Currie had taken the usual precautions." Mr. GILL asked his lordship to request thejury to answer the question as to whether Dr. Currie had not committed a legal assault upon Mrs. Crier on or about Nov. 20th, 1904, by examining her after leading her to believe he was not attending any scarlet fever patients. After some deliberation the jury intimated their inability to agree and were dischared. Mr. MCCALL : I ask for judgment for the defendants. His LORDSHIP: Yes. Mr. FARLEIGH: Is your lordship going to separate the claims, the jury having disagreed upon one part ? His LORDSHIP : On reflection I do not think I ought to have allowed the second question to go to the jury. A stay of execution with view to an appeal will be granted on the usual terms.
Looking Back. FROM
THE LANCET, SATURDAY, March 15th, 1828. FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. *MM. BRESCHET and RASPAIL have lately been engaged investigating the structure of the nerves, with a view to ascertain whether there were canals, according to the opinions of the late M. Bogros, permeating the:r centre or not ? The conclusion at which these anatomists have arrived is, that there are no canals in the centre of the nerves, and consequently that it is not by virtue of any fluid contained in them that the powers of sensation and voluntary motion are performed. In all the cases where the attempt was made to inject mercury into the nerve, this fluid either escaped between the loose cellular membrane and the neurilema, or the neurilema and the nerves ; and in no instance continuously through the centre of the nerve. in
As JOE BURNS was bustling through the streets one day this week, he was overtaken by an old colleague, who, after the usual friendly salutation, complimented him on his late success in joke and pun. "Mere trifles, Sir," said JOE, " struck offat the moment ; cost me no trouble ; not worthy of your attention." It was soon apparent that the friend was quizzing, and that he did not believe JOE to be the real author of the good things that pass under his name. The latter was nettled at this; for, though very good natured, and affecting indifference on the point, he is extremely sensitive whenever his reputation as a wit is called in question. "Well,said the friend, ’’you may easily settle the point; make a joke directly ; if it be good, I will give up JoE took him my doubts, and the effort shall not be lost." at his word, and said with incredible promptitude, " Tell me, Sir, why Ben Travers is like the glorious orb of day."’ This apparently incongruous comparison of the source of light to the great master of the dark style, completely puzzled the doubter ; the more he reflected on the unfathomable depths of this profound author, the less was he able to discover in him the likeness of anything luminous, and he soon gave up the attempt. "Why," said JOE, with a look of exultation over the confoanded sceptic, " did not Ben rise in the east, and has he not gone down in the west ?"
* Repertoire d’Anatomie,
tom. iv., p. 4.