48

with him to the discharge of that duty acompetent skill, and great humanity andpatience. The jury were instructed by me,and it has been forcibly impressed uponthem by your counsel, (and there was greatpropriety in what he said upon it,) that itwas an error in judgment, or an accidentfor which a man ought not to suffer. Thatwas a distinction which he was fully un-derstood to take ; but it would seem fromthe verdict, that the jury were satisfied,(and I confess that I am satisfied, though I am at a loss to ascertain to what it wasowing,) that you did not conduct yourselfwith skill, humanity, and patience on thatparticular occasion. The consequence hasbeen the loss of human life; and whoeversits in mv situation must hold human lifein high estimation. You have occasioned the death of a fellow creature, and I amsorry to say anything to a person like your- self to aggravate the mental sufferings youmust feel. I hope the sentence which Ihave to pass upon you will have the effectof showing that the offence is regarded asbeing a very serious one, though I am anxi-ous that the punishment should not exceedthe actual bounds which practice has pre-scribed. I also hope that, under the circum-stances, the imprisonment to which I amnow about to condemn you to, will have itseffect; and that when it has expired, youwill return to your profession, and to theplace where you practised it, with an un-blemished character, generally speaking;and that you will not be ruined by thesentence I have to pass upon you. Thesentence of the Court for this offence is,that you be imprisoned in the Castle ofYork for the space of six months.

HEREFORDSHIRE ASSIZES.

Monday, March 26, 1838.(BEFORE MR. BARON ALDERSON.)

MERRICK, v. WAKLEY.

[THE following report, with some unim-portant corrections, has been copied fromthe " Hereford Times " of March 31st.]

SPECIAL JURY.C. T. Bodenham, Esq., Rotherwas.R. M’Murdo, Esq., Lyonshall.T. Woodall, Esq., Walford.W. H. Gwillim, Esq., Woolhope.C. Ballinger, Esq., Madley.N. Peyton, Esq., Barton Court.Joseph Bird, Esq., Hampton Bishop.W. Mason, Esq., Leintwardine.J. Phillipps, Esq., Eaton Bishop.W. Havard Apperley, Esq., Withington.T. Dunne, Esq., Bircher.Mr. J. Williams, a common juryman.This was an action brought by the plain-

tiff, a surgeon and apothecary, practising atKington, in this county, to recoyer from

the defendant, M.P. for Finsbury, compen.sation in damages for publishing an allegedlibel. The defendant pleaded a justification.Mr. Serj. Ludlow,Mr. Richards, and Mr. C.Phillips conducted the plaintiff’s case, andMr. Serjeant Talfourd, Mr. Whateley, andMr. Busby, appeared for Mr. Wakley.Mr. Serjeant LUDLOW said he appeared

on behalf of the plaintiff ; and the jury,when they heard the libel read, would atonce believe that the duty which he had toperform was a most anxious one. This was

an action brought to recover compensationin damages for the publication of certainlibels in THE LANCET of Nov. 18, 1837, ofwhich the defendant was the editor and pro.prietor, tending to impute to the plamtlttgreat negligence in his character of medicalofficer to the Kington Poor-Law Union. Mr.Wakley had pleaded that the charges con-tained in the libel were true. The primaryobject of the plaintiff in instituting theseproceedings, was to clear his character fromthe charges which not only affected his cia-racter as a medical man, but as a memberof civilised society. Mr. Wakley was notthe author of the libel complained of, buthad inserted it on the authority of a personwhose name he had refused to divulge. Itwould be seen that the plaintiff had beenonly made a sort of collateral object of at,

tack, the real object of the writer being to

prejudice the minds of the poor against theoperation of the New Poor-Law. (WhenMr. Serjeant Talfourd replied to and deniedthe truth of this assertion of the plaintiff’scounsel, the judge interrupted him, withan assurance that it was not necessary torefute the statement, as the question beforethe Court was clearly not one of politics,but a question of neglect, and in that lightonly could either he or the jury regard it.)The libel was in these terms :-TREATMENT OF THE SICK-POOR UNDER THE MEN-

CAL CONTRACT SYSTEM.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE LANCET.

SIR :-Your valuable publication having recentlyfallen under my notice, I was very forcibly struckwith the truth of your observations respecting’ unionmedical contracts, and their tendency to deprivethe poor of this kingdom of efficient medical at-tendance in the hour of sickness; and, as it mayINTEREST the advocates of the " cheap " system tohave evidence laid before them respecting its prac-tical results, 1 beg to forward to you the two fol-lowing cases, which I have selected out of manyothers which have recently come under my ownimmediate observation. I am, Sir, your obedientservant,

HUMANITAS.Kington, Hereford, Nov. 2nd, 1837.

CASE 1.—William Prothero, 57 years of age, ofthe parish of Kington, labourer, has been subjectto a double inguinal hernia for the last eight years,but had always been able to return the bowel intothe abdomen without difficulty. On the 27th ofMarch last the rupture came down in a greaterdegree than usual, and after experiencing con-siderable pain, and endeavouring in vain to returnit, he made application for assistance to the medical officer of the union, who soon after attended,

and the result.of whose visit will be best seen in

49

the man’s own words, in reply to the following CASE 2.-William Abbot, of Woodbrook, in thequestions:- parish of Kington, labourer, on the 24th of De-When the doctor came to you were you in bed?- cember last, received a severe wound on the back

Yes. of his right hand, from getting it entangled in theWhat did he do for you ?-Nothing. wheel of a timber carriage, the whole of the integu-What did he say to you ?-He said he could do ment being torn oft’, and the hand otherwise fright-

nothing that could do me any good, but that I fully bruised and lacerated. Hewentlmmedlatelymight put some ice to it. to the medical officer of the union, who sewed upDid he feel it, or endeavour to reduce it ?-No, some part of the wound, and dressed it, telling the

he did not even put his hand on me. man to come again on the next day but one. TheDid he direct any one else to try and reduce it ?- man went as directed, and was told that the part

Yes, he told my wife that she was to try and was going on well, and that it need not be un-knead it up with her hands. done," and he was desired to come again in twoDid she do so?-No, she was afraid of hurting days. At the expiration of the two days he kept

me, and he did not show her how. his appointment, stating that his arm was muchWhen did he see you again ?—HE CAME AGAIN ix swollen, and that his hand was exceedingly painful,

SIX DAYS. to which the only reply he obtained was, " WhatWhat was done for you ?-Nothing at all. would you have said if it had been as big as yourDid he feel the swelling?—No, he never put his body ?" He requested to have it dressed, but could

hand on me. ... not prevail on the medical officer to accede, and

Did he give you any medicine?—Yes, three he was compelled to return to his home as he leftpills. it. On the seventh day after the accident he wentDid they act on your bowels.-No, I vomited again, and represented the very painful conditionthem almost directly.

,. of the wound, pointing out that matter was oozingDid you vomit much all this time?-Yes, I vo- from beneath the bandage in every direction, andnnied everything I took. that it was so offensive that his wife ceuld not bear

Was anything done for you on this occasion ?- him in the house. The only reply which he re-Nothing; but I heard him tell my wife that I ceived was, " Well, 1 cannot attend to you now,"should soon die. and he was at length compelled to get it dressedWhat took place afterwards ?-He came to see elsewhere as well as he could. The man was

me now and then, but he did not do anything for laid up, however, NINE weeks with the injury, andme. when he had been at his work THREE weeks thisYou continued much the same, did you ?—No, humane individual called, FOR THE FIRST TIME, tothe swelling burst.

. inquire " WHAT HAD BECOME OF xlat’?"When was this’?-Just three weeks after it hap- [The foregoing statements have been authenti.pened. cated by the writer in a private note to the Editor.]Before this took place did your bowels act ?—Not once.Did they after the swelling burst?—No, every- The defendant having pleaded a justifica.thing- came out through the opening, tion, he was bound to prove the libel to beDid the doctor see you regularly all this time?- strictly true, and the issue, therefore, being

No.

How often did he see you?-Once in two or upon the defendant, he (Mr. Ser. Ludlow)three weeks, may be, but sometimes it was longer. would content himself, in the first instance,What was the longest time he was absent from with putting in the libel; and if any wit-

you during any period of your illness ?—SDVEN nesses should be called on the part of theWEEKS.Seven weeks-are you sure of this’-Yes, I can defendant, he (the learned counsel) wouldswear to it, and so can my wife and the others have another opportunity of addressing thewho were here at the time. Jury, and would be prepared with abun-Have you anything else particular to tell 2ne?- dant evidence to satisfy them that theWhy, only that when 1 asked him to bnlilg some danteBictence to satisfy them that theother doctor to see me, he said he should’nt do it, charges made against the plaintiff had Moas he could do all that could be done himself. foundation.The man continued in astate of great emaciation The publication of the libel being ad-for a considerable time (necessity imposing upon mitted.him a very spare diet), and NO MEANS BEING muteO,

TAKEN BY ms MEDICAL ATTENDANT TO SUPPLY Hm Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD addressed the jurywITH ANYTHING BEYOND THE Two SHILLINGS AND on behalf of the defendant. He said, thatSIXPENCE PER WEEK, AND THE BREAD ALLOWED they would remark that the publicationBY THE UNION. Everything that he took con- they would remark, that the publicationtinued for some weeks to pass through the opening, complained of was contained in work whichbut upon persevering in the use of lavements his was altogether medical. The very phrasesbowels at length acted partially in the natural way. used in it wefe such aS would not be gene-At the same time, it may be observed, that the use "°"* ’-’ ","Ste sucnas woum not De gene-of lavements was left te be suggested by a non- rally understood. It was a work whichprofessional individual who casually visited him. was not likely to fall into the hands of anySuch is the treatment which this poor fellow one of the paupers in the extensive districthas received under this Union medical contractor, of Kington. The medical profession had,and but for the kind suggestions of those medical ofK’agton. The medical profession had,

gentlemen who had visited him from time to time, no doubt, a great interest with regard tofrom motives of curiosity, as well as from feelings the mode in which medical relief was ad-of compassion, he must have been lost; and it is ministered to the poor as it affected theonly to be regretted that the latter were not aware of the case at a time when efficient relief might honour and interests of the profession, theyhave been afforded to him. It may be added, that had a deep interest in it with relation to thexo MEANS have been taken, even to the present necessitous and distressed, for whom tleytime, to accelerate the closing just the fistulous state as had for many years made sacrifices whichings, and there he remains in-just the same state as he has been in for the last twelve weeks, the gen- no other profession had ever mad. Thetlemen in the neighbourhood, who are competent medical profession was the only one whichto undertake the case, declining to interfere, as had been in the habit of bestowing a largetheir interference would cause the man pay to be withdrawn by the guardians. portion of its time, energy, and skiU, with-

[This statement refers to what has taken place out the hope of any other return than thatbetween the 27th of March and the last month.] which good deeds bring back to the heart

50

of him who performs them, and they were my wife that it would not be long before Ifamiliar with the squalid wretchedness of was dead; I had the hiccup very bad, andthe most wretched portion of mankind. It he sent me a bottle of medicine, whichhad been with them, no doubt, a subject of stopped that directly; I took the pillscomplaint that the district over which one which he gave me, but soon vomited them ;medical officer was called on to preside was in about three weeks after the 27th oftoo large. They had felt it to be a grievance March the tumour burst; my bowels hadthat medical offices should be made matters not acted in the usual way for some timeof contract, and the amount of remunera- previously, not did they for months after-tion should be such as to prevent the most wards ; my food passed through the open-skilful practitioners from accepting them. ings made by the bmsting of the tumour;The publication complained of had imme- at one time the plaintiff remained seven weeksdiate reference to this subject, and although without calling to see me ; before the tu.it evidently applied to the medical officer of mour burst I sent my wife to the plaintiffthe Kington Union, it indicated no desire to request that he would come and operateto point out Mr. Merrick to the public at for the rupture; when he came, he said helarge as being the party to whom it related. must cut me in this way (describing it),Just so much and no more was stated as upon which I said I could not submit to thewas necessary to authenticate the facts. operation without another doctor being pre.The defendant’s object had not been to sent ; he said he could not think of that, aspoint out the particular defects or errors of he could do it himself; I thought it was asan individual, but to represent the working well to die one way as the other, and there-of a system. His case was, that the system fore would not let him perform the opera-did not admit of that constant, unwearied, tion. The guardians of the poor allowedand delicate attention which the sufferings me half-a-crown a week and two loaves ofof the poor required. The learned counsel, bread; I wanted some meat, but Mr. Mer-after stating the nature of the evidence rick would not let me have it at first, forwhich he intended to produce in order to fear of inflammation, but he afterwards or.prove the justification pleaded, called the dered me some ; during the seven weeksfollowing witnesses :- that Mr. Merrick was absent I used a glys-

ITl-rn. Prothero-I am a labourer living ter, which enabled the bowels to act in aat King’s Wood, within the Kington Union, partial degree ; nothing was done by Mr.and am 57 years of age. For the last eight Merrick to close the openings made by theyears I have been afflicted with a rupture, bursting of the tumour.which, on the 24th of March, 1837, became (Cross-examined.)—Mr. Mitchell, a sur-

so bad that I could not return the part as I geon of Kington, called upon me severalhad done on former occasions. On the third times ; he looked at the part affected, andday, the 27th, I sent my wife to the plaintiff told my wife to wash it; it had not beenfor medical assistance; she went to him in washed before that time, but clean rags hadthe morning, and he came in the dusk of the been put upon it, sometimes as often as ten

evening; I was then lying on the bed ; my times a day; Mr. Walker, a medical man,sister pulled the bed-clothes down and came to see me on the second Sunday aftershowed him the part afflicted; the plaintiff I was bad ; that was the day before Alr.did not touch it, but said it was a thing Merrick’s second visit; my wife went tothat could not be 1’emedied; my sister went Mr. Walker to see if he could do anythingdown stairs with him, and I heard her ask for me; I will not swear that Mr. Merrickhim whether there was any remedy for me; did not feel my pulse and look at my tonguehe said there was none; that I should be a the first time he came ; my wife had assist-dead man, but that I might wet some cloths ed me in putting up the rupture on formerand put them to the part, or I might put occasions, and had succeeded in doing so,ice to it, and she might try and knead it up; but it was too much for her this time ; Mr.he did not himself attempt to knead it up. Merrick had his instruments with him whenThis was on Monday, the 27th, and he did he came to operate, but I refused to let himnot see me again till the Monday following, use them, as I thought I should die. HeBetween his first and second visit I sent to said I need not be kept in suspense about it,Mr. Bartlett, a gentleman living in the but he would do it for me at once ; but I

neighbourhood, who I heard was a very would not submit to it unless there was an-

good man, and understood something of other doctor with him. I believe Mr. Wil-surgery ; I wanted to see him on account of liams, the relieving guardian, called uponm: soul as well as my body; he came to me between the 27th of March and theme m the Thursday, and on the Monday 3rd of April. I made no complaint to himfollowug, a week after the plaintiff’s first of Mr. Merrick not having been to see me;visit, Mr. Merrick came to me again and the ice which Mr. Merrick directed me togave me some pills ; he did nothing on that apply to the part, cooled it, and gave meoccasion but look at the parts in question, some relief; he visited me four times be-feel my pulse, and look at my tongue, he tween the 27th of March and the time whendid not touch the rupture; I heard him tell the tumour burst. From the latter end of

51

August till the middle of November, Mr. If that is not improper conduct, then the publi-Merrick and Mr. Williams, the relieving cation is not a libel, for that is all the publica-officer, came to see me very regularly ; Mr. tion charges.Williams came with Mr. Merrick because (Cross-examined.)—I cannot tell whetherMr. Merrick refused to come without him, Prothero was attended by Mr.Merrickonce-in consequence of my wife having had some or a dozen times; I made no communica-words with him, and having told him he tion to him orr the subject, though I lived

might have his tea and his rags back again, in the same town, and knew that he wasMrs. Merrick had given my wife two spoon- the contract Poor-Law surgeon.fuls of tea and some rags ; after some time Mr. John 1"Iitchell, jun.-I went to see

I had a pair of sheets from the Union ; I Prothero on three or four occasions; I sawmade no complaint about Mr. Merrick, for him on the 22nd of May ; my father hadI really did not want to make a disturbance, seen him three weeks before. I went thereI complained to Mr. Head, one of the guar- at the request of Mr. Bartlett. When I firstdians, that the Poor-Law bread was sour, saw him he was suffering from a large gra-and about my not having meat enough; I nulated wound in his groin, extending tothink it was near May and June that Mr. the bottom of the scrotum. When I nextMerrick remained absent fiom me for seven saw him his condition was very much im-weeks. On one occasion I sent for him for proved. (Cross-exarrained.) Operation byanother complaint; he sent me some medi- the knife is always hazardous in strangn-cine which did me no good ; and Mr. John lated hernia. The application of ice is re-Mitchell sent me a bottle of stuff that re- commended in such cases, to allay inflam-lieved me in half an hour after I took it. mation, with the view of being better ableMary Williams, the sister of the last wit- to perform the operation; I did not commu-

ness, and Mary Prothero, his wife, gave nicate with Mr. Merrick upon the subject.similar testimony. The latter stated that (Re.-exarrained.) Had Mr. Merrick applied towhen Merrick proposed to perform the ope- me, I should have gone with him to assistration, Prothero said he would not submit in the operation ; but I should not haveto it unless he would get another doctor, to made any charge for so doing. Inflamma-which Merrick replied, that he could not do tion is over when mortification commences,that, as he should have to pay four or five mortification being the consequence of in-guineas for it, and the Union would not flammation. When inflammation ends inallow him the money. mortification, the application of ice is of noMr. John Mitchell.—I am a surgeon prac- use, and it is then improper to perform the

tising at Kington, where I have resided up- operation. In cases of strangulated hernia,wards of thirty years. On the 6th of May, an operation must be performed, or the pa-last year, I visited Prothero at the request tient will die, excepting in a remarkableof Mr. Bartlett. He had a double inguinal case, like that of Prothero. The usualhernia. He wasin a very debilitated state, practice is to try to reduce it by the hand,and was suffering from severe constitutional and, if that fails, to perform the operation,irritation. The rupture had burst at that and the sooner that is done the better.time, and there were three different open- Mr. Walter Hall, a glover at Kington;ings. He had a very quick pulse. The stated that he was one of the Board ofgreater part of the scrotum had sloughed Guardians, and that in September last, hav-away, and there was a great destruction of ing heard statements with respect to Pro-parts, which arose from mortification. He thero, he went to his house, and examinedappeared to be in a sinking state, and I his person, after which he endeavoured toordered him light nutritious diet, animal get some of his brother guardians to assistfood every day, and beer also, thinking that him in investigating the case, but did not suc-preferable to wine. I ordered the parts to ceed in his application to them.be washed with warm water, and dry lint to (Here ended the evidence on the first casebe applied. The thighs were in a state of in the alleged libel. Case 2, was then in-excoriation down to the knees, from the im- vestigated.)mense discharge that took place, and Ful- TVin.. Havart (erroneously printed Abbotler’s earth was recommended as a pallia- in THE LANCET of Nov.18).—I am a labourertive, and it gave him considerable relief. living near Woodbrook, in the parish of(By Mr. Baron Alderson.)—Was it right to Kington. In December, 1836, I received aleave a person without attending him from wound on the back of the hand ; it was

Monday to Monday, if he was in such a torn by a timber carriage. The man whocondition of hernia that the medical man at- was with me tied my hand up with a hand-tending him thought he was likely to die? kerchief ; I then went to Mr. Merrick andWitness.—Certainly not. He ought to have showed him my hand ; he washed it withbeen visited daily. warm water, and sewed it up, and then putMr. BARON ALDERSON.—Why I should some bandages on it. He told me to come

think that it does not require a medical man again the second day ; on the second day Ito say that a person in such a condition went again; he then looked at my hand,ought to be seen oftener than oaee a week. and asked me if the bandages were all on

52

he same as he had put them ; I said, yes, moner of the University of Cambridge, andand he said that was all he wanted ; he then studied with the intention of going to thetold me to come again on Monday, which church. While I was at the University, Iwould be the fifth day after the accident. I occasionally attended medical lectures. Iwent to his house on the Monday; my hand live at Wood Villa, near Kington. In Marchwas very painful then, and Mr. Merrick last, I received a message from Prothero,looked at it and told me to go home and dip requesting me to go and see him ; my objectit in cold water; he desired me to come in going to him was to give him spiritualagain on Wednesday. Before Wednesday consolation, for I was then told that hemy hand and arm became worse, and the arm could not live; I found him suffering so se.was much swollen; matter was formed in vercly, and vomiting so excessively, that Ithe hand, which, when I held my hand could not accomplish the object for which Idown, ran out at my fingers’ ends ; I showed went. (Cross-exuznined.) I found him inhim my hand on the Wednesday, and told such a state that I could not mix up medi-him of the swelling of my arm; he said, cal treatment with spiritual consolation; I" Poola ! it is not half so bad as I expected endeavoured to reduce the rupture in conse-it would be-I thought it would be as big as quence of my having been told that nothingyour whole body before now." I asked him had been done for him ; I am not in holyto dress it, and he replied that he should not orders, nor am 1 a member of the Pastoraldress it for a week or, perhaps, nine days. I Aid Society ; I do not consider myself com-told him it was very painful, and showed petent to reduce a rupture, but doing any-him the matter; my wife was with me at thing is, I conceive, better than doing no-that time; the discharge was very offensive thing ; I did not go to see Prothero with ato the smell, and I mentioned it to -Alr.Mer- double aspect ; my object in going was torick, but he did not dress it. I did not- go to give him spiritual consolation, but finding hehim again. About ten days after the acci- was not in a state to receive it, and that no-dent, Mr. Bartlett came to me, at my re- thing had been done for him, I did what Iquest; I told him the state in which my could to alleviate his sufferings; I made nohand and arm were, and that I could not get communication to Mr. Merrick or to theanybody to take off the bandages and look Poor-Law Guardians at that time as to theat it. I requested Mr. Bartlett to dress it state in which I found his patient; I madefor me, and he told my wife how to do it; no communication to the Poor-Law Guar.the bandages were got off by soaking the dians with respect to the medical treatmenthand in warm water, and part of them were of Prothero, but I did make an applicationcut off with a scissars. When the wound to them to furnish him with some sheets; Iwas cleansed, a poultice was applied to it; am not a Bachelor of Civil Law, but I am aI was laid up with it for nine weeks. The student of six years’ standing, and entitledlast time I saw Mr. Merrick was when he by courtesy so to describe myself; I am en.told me that he should not dress it for a week titled to take my degree, and intend toor nine days. (Cross-examined.) I told Mr. talie it.Merrick, on the Monday, that the smell was Counsel.—Did you not communicate to

beginning to get bad ; I do not recollect see- Mr. Wakley the subject matter of this libel?ing any lady at Mr. Merrick’s except Mrs. Mr. Baron Alderson.—You are not boundMerrick ; when I saw Mr. Merrick he told to answer that question.me to come at eleven o’clock in the morn- Witness.—Then I decline answering it.ing, and I went at the time he appointed; I I have not indemnified Mr. Wakley for thedo not recollect seeing Miss Fall, Mr. Mer- costs of this action ; I flatly say that I haverick’s sister-in-law, there; I do not recol- not indemnified Mr. Wakley for the costs oflect her telling me that Mr. Merrick was this action. I put a truss upon Prothero atangry with me for not coming to my time, one time by the advice of Mr. John Mitchell,and that he waited for me above an hour ; if the surgeon, of Kington ; he afterwardsshe did, I did not hear it ; I remembera lady complained that he could not wear thethere saying that Mr. Merrick was gone out, truss, and I took it off; I have no recol-and that, perhaps, he would call and see lection of saying to any of the guardiansme; I will swear I did not say to her that that if they would not let Prothero havemy hand was easy, and I did not think it some sheets, I would put a truss upon him,necessary to come; I was not leceiving and bring him down with me, and makeparish relief at the time the accident occur- them all ashamed of themselves; I have nored ; I had a small pig of my own, and a few recollection of it. I wrote a letter to thepotatoes, perhaps enough to hold out for a Board, in which I said, that if the manyear. (Re-examined.) I was not able to pay died, I would have a coroner’s inquest helda doctor myself, and that was my reason for upon him ; I have no recollection of havingapplying to Mr. Merrick. told Mr. Williams, the relieving guardian,Mary Havart, the wife of the last wit- that I would make up a case for THE LAN,

ness, corroborated the evidence given by CET; I think it most probable that I saidher husband. nothing of the kind. (Re-examined.) TheMr. Josiah Bai-tiett.-I am a Fellow Com- statement complained of appears to me to

53

be a true representution of the information I quite certain that that was as early as thereceived from Prothero ; I have had no dif- 1st of April ; an extr allowance of olle

ference with Mr. Merrick, and it is painful shilling a week was made to Prothero fromto my feelings to appear here as a witness the fifth week after the 27th of March, butagainst him; I supplied Prothero with he had been previously supplied with meatmoney out of my own pocket for months, once, and a few other things. I shouldconceiving him to be in such a state as to think I saw Mr. Merrick at Prothero’s house

require additional comforts. from eight to a dozen times between March(The evidence on the part of the defend- and July; I should say that the district of

ant to prove the justification being now Kington, over which Mr. Merrick had tocompleted, Mr. Serjeant Ludlow, on behalf preside as medical officer, is about twelveof the plaintiff, called the following wit- miles long, by seven broad ; Mr. Merrick isnesses in reply.) still the medical officer of the Union, and

Samuel Williams.—I was in 1836 one of he was re-appointed afler all investigation intothe relieving officers of Kington. There his conduct by the guardians; after the ap-are four districts in the Union, and I belong plication about the sheets, I went with Mr.to the first; Mr. Merrick’s appointment as Merrick on every occasion of his going tomedical officer of the Union has been re- Prothero’s house; Mr. Merrick wished menewed from time to time by the guardians, to do so in consequence of Mrs. Protheroand he still holds the otfrce ; he has a great having used abusive language to him ; Mrs.many paupers under his care. On Monday, Prothero attended the Board of Guardiansthe 27th of March, I requested him to see on one occasion, at least, after the 27th ofWilliam Prothero, whom I had seen the March.day before; I went to see him on the Sun- Hannah Wiliams.—I am the wife of theday, in consequence of his wife having last witness ; I have frequently heard bothcome to me ; on MoHdcty, the 27th, some Prothero and his wife express their grati-meat was supplied to him, which he might tude for the kindnes and attention they hadhave had on Sunday if he had sentfor it; it received from Mr. Merrick ; I remember

was the duty of the medical officer to exhi- the application being made for a pair ofbit a book at every weekly meeting of the sheets, but neither ef them complained ofBoard, containing a report of his visits to any inattention on the part of Mr. Merrickthe paupers ; in consequence of Mr. Mer- Mrs. Prothero has spoken to me 100 timesrick’s representations, an extra allowance about Mr. Merrick’s kindness and attentionof money and bread was made to Prothero to her husband. (Cross-examined.) She wasby the Board between March and Novem- in the habit of coming to my house once aher ; about the 26th of July, an application week, and she generally spoke to me of Mr.was made for some sheets ; I can venture to Merrick’s kindness ; I can sit-eai- she spokesay that between the 27th of March and the of it 100 times at least. (Re-exarninecl.)time when the application was made for the Whenever she spoke of Mr. Merrick she

sheets, no week elapsed without my seeing alicays referred. to his kindness, and sheProthero and his wife ; if, therefore, Mr. never asked for more relief.Merrick had ever been absent for seven DIr. Edward TValker,-1 am a surgeon re-weeks during that period, I must have siding at Kington, where I have practisedknown it; I will swear that no four weeks for about thirty-six years. On Sunday, theelapsed without my seeing Mr. Merrick, at 22nd of April last, Mrs. Prothero calledProthero’s house; neither Prothero nor his upon me, and requested that I would gowife ever complained to me of negligence and see her husband ; I found him sufferingon the part of Mr. Merrick, between the from strangulated hernia, which is a very27th of March and the time when the sheets painful complaint; the parts were in a verywere delivered; but, on the contrary, they inflamed state, and he exhibited symptomsfrequently expressed their thankfulness to of great debility, with a low and languidhim for his kindness and attention ; the pulse; his countenance looked anxious,first order of the Board for an increased al- which is one indication of disease ; he toldlowance to Prothero, was on the 29th of me he had suffered a good deal from vomit-March, and the day after that I went to ing and hiccup. I considered the hernia tovisit him; he told me on that occasion that be bordering on mortification, and thoughtMr. Merrick had endeavoured to put up the him in a very dangerous state.; I said

rupture with his hand, but that his attempt that, in my opinion, nothing could be doneto do so had failed. He told me he could except an operation, upon which Mrs. Pro-not, in his then weak state, bear the opera- there said she was sure her husband wouldtion which Mr. Merrick proposed, and that not submit to it. Judging from the appear-he would rather die than submit to it; on ance of the tumour, and from its state ofthe 6th of April I saw Prothero’s wife, who inflammation, I should think it could nottold me that the tumour had burst, and in have continued for sixteen days withoutthe evening of that day I saw Prothero bursting ; I have no recollection of Mrs.himself, who told me the same thing, and Prothero making any complaint about Mr.he said he was much relieved by it; I am Merrick when she came to ask me to see

54

her husband; there are cases of strangu- cation of ice in such a case would be usefullated hernia in which ice may be advan- and proper in order to reduce inflammation,tageously used. but had I been called in I should not have

Miss Ann Fall.-I am the sister of Mrs. relied upon ice alone; I should have used itMerrick, and reside in the plaintiff’s house; for two or three hours to reduce the pro.they changed their residence two days be- trusion of the intestine, and to allay the in.fore the 27th of March, last year ; that cir- flammation ; I should then try other means,cumstance enables me to recollect that on and if they failed, I should immediately sug.Monday, the 27th of March, two days after gest an operation; I should say that if anour removal, Mrs. Prothero came to the operation was necessary, every minute lostplaintiff’s house; she also came on the 29th. would be of great consequence; mortificationOn that day I fetched down a box of surgi- is the result of inflammation; if the herniacal instruments for Mr. Merrick, by his di. is acute, of course the intestine would be.rection; I gave them to him, and he carried come inflamed and mortify more speedilythem away in his pocket; he told me the than it would if the disease were of a chro.purpose for which he wanted them.—Mr. Ser- nic nature. At first I thought that Pro.jeant Lacdlow What did he say he was going thero’s complaint was of a chronic nature,to do with them?—Mr. Serjeant Talfourd: but when he described to me his symptoms,I object to that.—Mr. Baron Alderson: No, they appeared to indicate acute hernia, andit is not evidence.-The Witness: I am sure in that case mortification would take placethis was on Wednesday, the 29th of March; much earlier. Supposing the man to haveI saw Mrs. Prothero repeatedly at my bro- been in the state described by Mr. Walkerther’s house, and she never complained of on the 2nd of April, I should think the tu-

any inattention on the part of Mr. Merrick. mour would not remain 16 or 17 days with.My sister’s birthday was on the 9th of June; out bursting, for his constitutional debilitythat circumstance enables me to recollect was very great. I should say that the gutthat I walked out with her and the plaintiff was in a state of mortification at the timeon that day, and that we went to Prothero’s when Mr. Walker saw him. (Cross-exa.house on that as well as other occasions, mined.) I saw Prothero on the 5th Decem.both before and after ; I saw Mr. Merrick her, at the request of Mr. Sill, the plaintiff’senter the house on the 9th of June, and I had attorney ; he requested me to see the state inbeen there with him once before, about the which he was, and to ascertain the symp.latter end of May; I saw him enter the toms he had; judging from what I havehouse each time ; he has sometimes remain- heard of Prothero’s state on the Monday, Ied in the house for half an hour, and some- should say that he required constant watch.times longer. ing and attention. Supposing I had a pa.

Mr. James Davis.—I am chairman of the tient in the state I have heard described, IBoard of Guardians at Kington; I do not should have proposed an operation, and ifknow the person of Mary Prothero, but I he would not consent to it, I should havebelieve I saw her at the Board about the washed my hands of it; my advice to himend of March, or the beginning of April, or would have been to submit to the operation;both. I have a general recollection of hav- if he would not consent to it, I should haveing seen her there two or three times; she made my bow, and walked away. (Examinedapplied for an increased allowance, but she by Mr. Baron Alderson.) If no operation hadmade no complaint of inattention on the part been proposed, I think the surgeon ought toof Mr. Merrick. (Cross-examined.) I should have attended regularly if ice were given tonot know Mrs. Prothero if I were to see her a person in such a state, it would be to wardnow; all I remember is, that some person off inflammatory action as preliminary to theof the name of Prothero came to the Board operation; if I were called in to such a

representing herself as the wife of William case, I would not apply ice, but I would atProthero. (Re-examined.) There was a dis- once perform the operation; if I had orderedcussion about sheets in July; up to that ice to be applied, I would have waited atime I heard no complaint against Mr. Mer- certain time to see the effect produced by it,rick; if Mrs. Prothero had made any com- and then, if I found it necessary, suggestedplaint I must have remembered it. an operation.Mr. Robert Stewart and Mr. Lilwall, two Mr. Griffiths, a surgeon, residing in the

of the guardians, stated, that after the ap- neighbourhood of Hereford, stated that ifplication for the sheets, they remembered a he had been called in to a patient in such aperson named Prothero coming to the Board state as Prothero was described to have beenfor relief; but they did not know her by on the 27th of March, he would have pro-sight. posed the operation. Ice is recommendedDr. John Bleeck Lye.—I have practised in cases of hernia by eminent surgeons ;

as a physician in Hereford for many years; supposing the hernia in this case to haveduring my early practice I saw many cases been in the state I have heard described onof hernia. From Prothero’s account of his the 2nd of April, I should not think it couldsymptoms I should say that the strangula- have remained for sixteen days withouttion must have been very severe ; the appli. bursting.

55

Miss Fall (recalled).-I remember Wil- proved. If they thought it was only par-liam Havart calling on the plaintiff in Ja- tially proved, and that the main chargesnl-iary, 1837 ; the plaintiff was at home, and were not made out, the plaintiff would behe took Havart into the kitchen and dressed entitled to solid and substantial damages;his hand; he was with him for nearly an but if, on the other hand, they were of opi-hour ; on his going away plaintiff desired nion that it was in substance proved, thoughhim to come next morning before 11 o’clock ; some part reinai)ied 2titproved, nominal damagesHavart did call the next day, and Mr. Mer- would be sufficient to meet the justice ofrick saw him ; he called again on the Mon- the case.day following about 2 o’clock; Mr. Mer- The jury, after having been in delibera-rick was not then at home, and I desired tion for upwards of an hour, came intohim to come next morning before 11 o’clock, Court, and requested to be informed by thebut he did not come ; I never saw him after- Associate (the learned Judge having retiredwards ; the last time I saw him, I told him to his lodgings) what amount of damagesMr. Merrick was very angry with him for carried costs, and on being informed that anot having called as he had been desired; return of any damages in the verdict, how-his answer was that his hand was easy, and ever small might be the amount, wouldthat that was the reason why he had not do so, they returned to their room to con-called ; Mr. Merrick had remained at home sider their verdict. After again deliberat-on that day an hour beyond his usual time ing for a considerable time, the jury inti-on purpose to see Havart. mated a wish to see the learned Judge, and,Mr. Serjeant TALFOURD, on behalf of accordingly, under the charge of the proper

the defendant, shortly addressed the jury officer, and accompanied by the Associateupon the evidence which had been given in and the attorneys of the parties, they pro-reply, on the part of the plaintiff. ceeded to his lordship, to whom the jury

. Mr. Serjeant LUDLOW was heard in reply stated their desire to return a verdict for

generally upon the whole case. such damages as would subject the plaintiffMr. Baron ALDERSON summed up the evi- to pay his own costs, but his lordship’s

dence at considerable length, commenting officer having informed them, that damages,upon each part of it with great minuteness ; however small, would carry costs, they re-there were, he said, three issues in the cause, quested some information relative to theirand although it had occupied a very great power to find separate verdicts on the seve-length of time, the real merits of the case ral issues raised by the pleas of justification,were in a very narrow compass. The first which his lordship fully explained to themissue was whether the defendant had pub- they might do. His lordship at the samelished a libel of and concerning the plaintiff time stating, that, with reference to thein his character and profession of a surgeon. costs, he had himself the power to certify.The publication of the alleged libel had The jury again retired, and, after an ab-been admitted, and the only question for the sence of about half an hour, presented them-jury to determine with reference to the first selves a second time before his lordship,issue was, whether the publication coin- and returned a verdict for the plaintiff,plained of was likely to do the plaintiff an DAMAGES—ONE FARTHING.mjuryin his profession. If it was injuriousto the character of the plaintiff, it could not, Mr. POTTER, of London, the attorney forin point of law, be justified, and in that case the defendant, applied immediately afterthe verdict must be for the plaintiff’ upon the derendant, aprien

immediately after

that issue. Supposing the jury to be of the verdict had been recorded, for a certifi-opinion that the publication complained of cate to deprive the plaintiff of costs, whenwas a libel, then the two remaining issues his lordship said that he should certainlywere for the defendant to establish ; and it take the circumstances into consideration,would be for the defendant to show that the and decide the application on another day.circumstances under which it was published The tuial commenced at nine o’clock .were such as to afford him a sufficient justi- The trial commenced at nine o’clock m

fication. The jury would say, by their ver- the morning, and did not terminate untildict, whether the defendant had substanti- one o’clock at night, and so strong was theally made out the defence which he had put feeling of interest in the town in favour ofupon the record, which was in substance, the poor disabled men, and the issue of thethat the plaintiff had been truly charged trial, that between one and two hundredwith negligence. If he had made out every between one and two hundred.part of his justification, then the verdict persons waited in the street from theshould be for the defendant; but if he bad termination of the inquiry, until the juryfailed to make out any part of it, then the proceeded, at eleven o’clock at night, toplaintiff would be entitled to a verdict with the residence of the Judge, whither theysome damages. He (the learned Judge) would recommend the jury, therefore, to were accompanied by a large assemblage,find a verdict for the defendant if they who then also remained to hear the verdictthought every part of the justification announced at an hour past midnight.