512 COURT OF CHANCERY—INQUEREST ON THE BODY OF THE LATE MR. MORTON.

four days there were nearly fifty persons attacked by thediieful malady, and that there had been between twenty andthirty deaths. We learn, also, that the disease has madeseveral fatal attacks at Gloucester within the last few days,and caused great alarm to the inhabitants throughout thetown.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

SAINTER V. FERGUSON.

Ttiis was an appeal from an order of Vice-Chancellor KnightBruce, granting au injunction to restrain the defendant frompractising as a surgeon and apothecary ill the town of Maccles-field, or within a circuit of seven miles of it. The circum-stances of the disputes between the plaintiff and defendanthave obtained considerable notoriety, and therefore need norecapitulation here, further than to explain the presentmotion. The plaintiff, a surgeon at Macolesfield, in the year1848 required an assistant, and upon the defendant offeringhimself, the agreement in question, was entered into, by which," in consideration that the plaintiff engaged the defendant asassistant, the said defendant promised that he would not atany time practise in Macclesfield, or within seven milesthereof." Differences having arisen between the parties, thedefendant started in opposition to the plaintiff as a surgeon atMacclesfield; and the present suit was then instituted to

prevent his continuing so to practise. Upon the first appli-cation for an injunction, the Vice-Chancellor refused it untilthe plaintiff had first established his right at law under theagreement. An action was then brought, which resulted ina verdict with X500 damages against the defendant, whichwere by the Court directed to be considered as liquidateddamages. The motion for an injunction was then renewedbefore the Vice-Chancellor, and granted by him. The presentappeal sought to rescind that order.Mr. BACON and Mr. LEWIN were for the appellant; Mr.

JAMES RUSSELL for the respondent.The LORD CHANCELLOR, without calling for a reply, said that

by the verdict at law the contract between the parties was atan end. The damages being in the nature of liquidated oneshad incorporated the agreement in the verdict, and unlesssome case were produced to show that this Court had evergranted an injunction to aid a legal contract after suchcontract had ceased to exist, he should certainly not establishsuch a new principle. The defendant by the S500 damageshad bought his right to practise within the proscribed district;and how could an injunction be therefore in fairness asked torestrain him from exercising such right ? The only principleupon which this Court acted in granting an injunction in aidof a legal right was after the establishing of such right at law,and of course during its continuance. In the present case theliquidated damages had destroyed any further claim at theplaintiff against the defendant under the contract; and theinjunction must therefore be refused.Order reversed.

__

INQUEST ON THE BODY OF THE LATE MR. MOR-TON, OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE HOSPITAL.

ON Thursday, November lst, an inquest was held before Mr.WAgrLEY,M.P.,and a jury of fourteen highly respectable inhabi-tants of St. George, Bloomsbury, on the body of Mr. TnoMAsMORTON, late Surgeon to the University College Hospital, andalso to the Queen’s Bench Prison.The inquiry took place in the private residence of the de-

ceased. After the jury had been swozn, and viewed the body,the Coroner, on returning to the inquest-room, addressing Mr.PowELL, the surgeon, said, -" On seeing the body, I havenoticed that in making the post-mortem examination, youhave not extended your investigation to the brain, that youhave not opened the head. Since my arrival here, informationhas reached me which renders it exceedingly desirable thatthe state of the brain of the deceased should be thoroughlyand minutely investigated; that, in fact, it should be subjectedto a very careful examination." Mr. PowELL replied, thathaving discovered the cause of the death in the stomach, heand his medical friends who had acted with him, had not con-sidered that any further examination was necessary, where-upon the coroner remarked that if he had been correctly in-formed, it would be necessary to extend the inquiry beyondthe mere cause of the death, and that in pursuing that portionof the investigation, it would be essential that evidence should

be given as to the condition of the brain, to ascertain, in factywhether the brain and its membranes were in a healthy or a dis-eased condition at the time of, and immediately preceding, thedeath of the deceased gentleman. He said, " if, therefore, youand the other medical gentlemen will now retire and proceedwith the examination of the head, we can, in the meantime,take the non-medical testimony. Probably by the time thatevidence is taken, you will be prepared to offer your testimonyas to the condition of the brain." Mr. Powell, Mr. Erichsen,and Dr. Garrod then retired, and

II ENRY WOODWARD was called, sworn, and examined.He stated that he had been page to the deceased gentleman,.

aud had filled that situation about eight weeks. Witnessfound the deceased dead in his bed about twenty-five minutespast nine o’clock on Tuesday morning. He was undressed, andlying on his back, with his hands stretched out, and near hisright hand, upon the bed, was an open Bible. Witness calledthe cook up stairs, and medical assistance was sent for. Mr.Powell came directly. Witness saw his master last aliveabout eleven o’clock on the preceding night. He then lookedvery pale, and appeared tired, but did not complain of illness.Witness never heard his master complain of illness, but re-marked that he looked paler than usual on the night before,when he came home. The deceased had been down stairs onthe morning of his death, and had opened the shutters in theparlour, as well as in his study. Witness never heard thathis master was in the habit of getting up during the night,but he frequently rose early in the morning.

CORONER.—Have you noticed anything particular in yourmaster’s manner during the last three or four days ?

.

’

WITNESS—During the last fortnight I have noticed him tohave very strange ways and sayings. Sometimes he wouldtell me to bring him up " a crust of bread and bread andcheese" for lunch; and several times he has given me direc-tions which I found it difficult to understand.

CORONER—Was any member of his family living here withhim?

WITNESS—Not since I have been here. Mrs. Morton is atpresent living at the deceased’s country house, at Shepperton,and my master always went there on Saturday afternoon, andcame back on Monday morning.

CORONER—Did you notice anything different in your master’s’manner when he came home on Monday night ? What didhe do!

’

_

WITNESS—He ate a crust of bread and drank a glass ofwater, which he usually did. He said he had dined, but-would take a baked potato for supper, and I brought himone up from the kitchen.

CORONER—Was he perfectly sober?WITNESS—He seemed to me to stagger a little when he

came in. I had never seen him do this before, but I hardlyknow that I can say he was not sober.

CORONER—Who attended upon your master generally?WITNESS—I did. The housemaid is at present in the.

country, and during her absence the cook made his bed.CORONER—Have you fetched anything from any druggist

for your master of late?I WITNESS—No. Sir.

CHARLOTTE GODDARD, cook in the service of the deceased,was next called. She said she was called up stairs by the-last witness, about twenty-five minutes past nine o’clock onMonday morning, and on entering the deceased’s bed-roomfound him quite dead. He was lying on his back, with anopen Bible near him, as if it had fallen from his hand,Witness went for Mr. Powell, who immediately attended,and was shortly followed by Mr. Stedman, of Gnilford-street,another surgeon, and a friend of the deceased. Witness lastsaw her master at eleven o’clock on the previous Monday"when he came in from Shepperton, and ordered his dinner.He was then looking very pale, and witness remarked thathe put his hand to his head, as if he was in pain. There hadbeen a great alteration in her master’s manner since thedeath of his father-in-law, Mr. Cooper, in December last, andhe had not been like the same gentleman for the last month-He would order certain things for dinner sometimes, and thenforget that he had ordered them. At other times, instead oftelling witness what was wanted, he would point; and then,when witness was at a loss to know what was meant, he wouldsay,

" Dear me, can’t you understand ?" It was very unusualfor him to speak in this manner, and his whole conduct duringthe last six weeks had been very different from what it wasformerly. He was a gentleman of sober habits. The pagetold me, on Monday night, that he had staggered a little;and I remarked to him that most likely master was giddy, asI had seen him put his hand to his head in the morning.

513

CORONER—Did the deceased leave any letters or papersaddressed to any one?

WITNESS—He did; it appears that he left upon the hall-table two letters, one addressed to Mrs. Morton, and anotherto Mr. Atkinson, of the University College Hospital. Theywere not found till Tuesday evening, having been overlookedduring the day.Mr. STEDMAN, a medical man, a friend of the deceased, who

was present, here handed the letters to the coroner, who(without opening them) replaced them in the hands of thatgentleman.Mr. POWELL was here sent for, and, having been sworn, said

he knew the deceased, who was thirty-six years of age, and afellow of the College of Surgeons. He was surgeon to theQueen’s Bench Prison, and also to University College Hospital,and had been demonstrator at the college. He was a verydistinguished man in his profession, and had assisted both hisfather-in-law, Mr. Cooper, and the late Mr. Liston, in theirprofessional duties. Witness was sent for on Monday last, asdescribed by the previous witnesses, and found the deceasedquite dead, and very nearly cold. Witness could discover nothingto warrant a suspicion that deceased had poisoned himself;there was no smell at the mouth of the deceased, and only anempty glass to be found in the room. Witness had sincemade a post-mortem examination of the abdomen. Therewas a large quantity of fat under the integuments and theomentum, and the stomach itself was large and flaccid. Thecontents, which emitted a strong odour of prussic acid, weresecured, and handed over by witness to Dr. Garrod for ana-lysis. In consequence of the smell of prussic acid being per-ceived, a further search was made, and a small, one-ouncephial, with a glass stopper, had since been found in a fold ofthe bed-clothes under where the deceased was lying.The bottle was here produced, and, although empty, yielded

a strong smell of prussic acid.CORONER—I should like now to have the examination of

the head.WITNESS—That examination is now completed, and Mr.

Erichse-n is present.Mr. d-ogN ERIC ERICHSEN being sworn, said he was assistant-

surgeon to University College Hospital, and had made anexamination of the head of the deceased since the inquest hadcommenced. He found considerable venous congestion ofthe sinuses within the skull, and also of the surfaces of thebrain and the membranes generally. The blood was fluid, andof a dark colour, and on slicing the brain a strong odour ofprussic acid was emitted. The upper surfaces of both mem-branes were slightly adherent, and there was a slight opacityof the arachnoid over both hemispheres at the vertex. Therewas no recent lymph, but a small quantity of lymph was per-ceptible over the part corresponding with the vertex, thisevidently of some standing. The arachnoid generally wastranslucent, but at this part was white and opaque. Thecerebral substance was healthy, and of a natural firmnessthroughout.

CORONER—Are you enabled to form any opinion whetherthe congestion you describe was in existence before thepoison was taken, or whether it was an effect of its action?

WITNESS—I consider it the effect of the poison. The con-gestion was confined to the veins, and there was no sign ofinflammation. The brain was, in fact, free from disease, andthe congestion I have described is the common effect of prussicacid.

Dr. GARROD, one of the assistant physicians of UniversityCollege Hospital, was next called. He proved havinganalyzed the contents of the stomach, and produced twophials containing portions of prussic acid he had obtained bydistillation. Witness believed deceased must have taken atleast half an ounce of the poison, from the quantity he hadrecovered by analysis.CORONER (to Mr. Erichsen)-From the examination of the

contents of the cranium, did you find anything that could leadyou to believe that the mind of the deceased was in an im-paired state ?Mr. ERICHSEN—I found nothing to lead me to that belief.The Coroner here said he believed the jury must be satisfied,

from the evidence they had heard, that the deceased lost hislife from the effects of prussic acid, and also that his death washis own act. If they were satisfied on these two points, anyother question in relation to either of those portions of theinquiry would be unnecessary. They had now arrived at thatpoint of the investigation when it became necessary to ascer-tain the state of the deceased’s mind at the time he took thepoison. In doing this it would be desirable for the jury tobear in mind the evidence of the cook and the page, as to their

master’s conduct lately. He regretted that the present stateof the law required them to enter into this question at all, as.the circumstances elicited often produced very painful im-pressions in the minds of surviving relatives without anycorresponding benefit, and he hoped to live to see the law onthis subject altered.The jury having expressed themselves quite satisfied with

the evidence on the two points referred to by Mr. Wakley,Mr. ERICHSEN was recalled, and, in reply to the coroner,

stated that he had known the deceased intimately for nineyears, and last saw him alive about half-past three o’c1ock onMonday afternoon, at University College Hospital. He thenappeared in his usual health; but lie was naturally of a

melancholy turn of mind, very quiet and reserved. Witness-had some conversation with him, and observing that heseemed out of spirits, advised him to go into the country for amonth, and have a change of air. The deceased had had anattack of English cholera lately, and had not been quite wellsince. Witness had a good deal of conversation withdeceased on Monday, chiefly about hospital matters. Thedeceased said he had been a good deal fagged by attendingto the arrangement of the late Mr. Cooper’s affairs, and heasked witness’s opinion as to the propriety of resigning hisposition of surgeon to the hospital. He said he had succeededto a good fortune, and did not wish to continue slaving all.his life. Witness advised him by no means to resign ; buthe replied that he had already written and sealed his letterto the council ; and if he did not send it in that week heshould at the end of three months. His appearance at thistime was that of a man who had not slept well over night,.and who had been fagged a good deal. Witness considereddeceased to be a man of temperate habits, though he wouldoccasionally take two or three glasses of wine when dining incompany. He was one of the hardest-working men witnessever knew in the profession.Mr. PowELL gave evidence of a corroboratory character,

and said, that shortly after Mr. Cooper’s death he was called.in by deceased, whom he found in a highly nervous state,complaining that he could not sleep, and that he was im-pressed with the most uncomfortable feelings. Witness pre-scribed for him at the time, and he appeared relieved the.next day.

CORONER—Is there anything else which it is important thatthe jury should know?

WITNESS—There have been several papers found, which in-dicate that something has been pressing on the deceased’smind lately.

CORONER—Where are those papers ?WITNESS—Mr. Stedman has them, I believe.Mr. SILAS STEDMAN, surgeon, of Guilford-street, was then

sworn. He said he had known the deceased for some years,and had generally seen him once a week, though not for five.weeks before his death. In answer to a questions from thecoroner, Mr Stedman said he had strong suspicions that thedeceased had not been so temperate in his habits as he oughtto have been. He might have seen him slightly intoxicatedfive or six times in the course of five or six years. Witnesshad remarked that his spirits had not been so good since Mr.Cooper’s death. On one occasion witness had heard deceasedcomplain that he had not been used well by an attorney whomhe had employed in the affairs of Mr. Cooper’s will.

CORONER—Have you any letters or other papers which wer&left by the deceased ?The witness here produced two letters found on Tuesday

last, after the deceased’s death, which, at the request of Mr-Wakley, he read aloud. The coroner asked if any objectionhad been raised by Mrs. Morton to their production. Thewitness said, on the contrary, Mrs. Morton was anxious thatthey should be produced. The first was addressed to his wife,at Shepperton. The witness observed, that the court wouldperceive that the letter was dated December 1849.

" 7, Woburn-place, December (sic) 30, 1849." My dearest Mary Ann,-Employ no lawyer to execute my

will." You and Anne can do it, if you will take advice ; I am

sure Mr. Pringle will advise you." You will find 1001. in my drawer, in the volume of Bell’s.

Surgery,’ p. 472." Also nearly 4501. at Hoare’s Bank." Pay my debts, which are small." Let my pictures and prints be sold in the spring by

Christie and Manson.

514

" May God bless you and Missie, and preserve you everfrom harm or trouble.

" Your most affectionate husband," To Mrs. Morton.

" THOMAS MORTON." It would have been fortunate had I never, of late, been

connected with the college."The second was addressed to Charles C. Atkinson, Esq.,

University College, London, and contained his resignation ofthe office of surgeon to the hospital attached to that institu-tion. The letter to Mr. Atkinson was as follows :-

" 7, Woburn-place, Russell-square, Oct. 26, 1849.

" My dear Sir,-May I request you to do me the favour tolay before the council of the College my resignation of theoffice I hold in the hospital. My best thanks are due to youand all my colleagues for much kindness I have receivedduring the long period I have had the pleasure of being con-nected with the institution. With every good wish for thehealth of yourself and family,

" I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely,To Charles C. Atkinson, Esq." ’

" THOMAS MORTON.

The resignation was couched in the following terms :-"7, Woburn-place, Russell-square, Oct. 21, 1849.

"My Lords and Gentlemen,-I beg to resign the office ofsurgeon which I hold in University College Hospital, and, atthe same time, to return you my most grateful thanks for thehonour you conferred upon me in electing me to it. I desireto take this opportunity to express my sincerest good wishesfor the continued prosperity of the college and all connectedwith it."I remain, with the greatest respect, my lords and gentle-

men, your most obedient servant,To the President and Council of University "TnoMAg MORTON.

College, London."

The witness said the other papers which had been foundformed a sort of diary, and were, he thought, very important,as showing the state of deceased’s mind for some time past.The CORONER requested the witness to read them to the

jury.Mr. STEDMAN then read several papers, preserving as near

as he could their chronological order. They were, he stated,all in the handwriting of the deceased. The first was dated" June, 1849?’

" Last year I was spending at the rate of £500 per annum,which was absurd, I might have kept a brougham, or refur-nished the drawing-room, or bought X200 worth of stock,which would have been best. Extreme and constant eco-nomy, spending not one shilling I can avoid. Pay off mydebts."Rule 1. Make my journeys at least expense. Take only

water on them." Rule 2. To be happy we have only to be sober, active, dili-

gent, and moderate in our expenses. Kind to all, but econo-mical."Rule 3. To increase connexion in town and country by

talii3g on and writing to every one." Rule 4. Work closely at hospital and dissecting room."Rule 5. Love my profession.Rule 6. Pay attention, and instruct the pupils. Be kind

and affable. Every one tells me that they get on better withwater than with wine, spirits, or beer, especially in hotweather; but avoid any excitement, even joviality, if by takingstimulants. Be very moderate when out in company. Takeno wine at home."Rule 7. Shun wine, beer, and spirits. Avoid suppers,

champagne, and moselle. Salads. Plenty of air and exercise.Always do some good work.

" Rule 7. Avoid beer at Chancery-lane, or elsewhere."Rule 8. Always be engaged in some useful and honour.able

work. Always be a gentleman, honest and truth-telling, andaffectionate to my family.

" Rule 9. No beer in the morning. Remember Dr. Head-lam, Sir J. Fife, Mr. Key, Mr. Arnott, Mr. Quain, and others.

11 Rvle 10. Be kind, frank, and cheerful to all patients, bothrich and poor. Take a warm interest in their comfort andwelfare, and ask Miller to breakfast or dinner."Rule 11. Let me begin to lay my money in- the funds."The next paper was dated "July," and ran thus:-" To spend as little as I can." To drink little or no beer or wine." To make my journeys at a little cost." To make my patients pay my debts, and for this attend to

them and the hospital closely."The next was dated " August."

" Rule 1. To spend as little as I can." Rule 2. To prepare for hospital duty."Rule 3. To make my journeys at the least cost." Rule 4. To make my practice pay my debts. Therefore

always be doing some good and useful work; and be atten-tive to all, rich, poor, hospital and in private. Never losemy temper, or indulge in unpleasant topics or thoughts."The next paper was dated

" October," and reiterated thesame principles of conduct:-

" To spend as little as I can. No extras. No wine or beer.Journeys to be cheap. Pay all debts out of fees. I havealready paid for prints 48l. 2&. Drink less. Do not go intotaverns. They only cause loss of time, money, temper, health,and character. When tired, take a glass of water and a playof Shakspere."Under the head of September the deceased had again

entered:---" To spend as little as I can. Very little beer orwine."

Repetitions of the foregoing were also read, in one of whichwas this passage :—" Rule 6. It is the system of ‘ Well, oneglass more3’which breaks a man down. It becomes too muchfor him by the next morning."The following extraordinary document was dated Sunday,

but no day of the month was attached :-"Write out the mode of proceeding after a death."1. Warn friends." 2. Send for a funeral man." 3. Order mourning."4. Invite friends."’Send gloves and crape to other friends." Next. Will business :"1. Read will." 2. Ascertain who will act and who will not." 3. Have property valued." 4. Go with will and valuation to a proctor at Doctors’

Commons, who will swear the executor; fee, one shilling." 5. Take will to Probate Office, and let it be copied." 6. Get probate in fourteen or seven days." 7. Get in debts to deceased." 8. Pay debts of deceased."9. Prepare accounts for Stamp Office." 1_0. Pay all bills and receive all income.11. Take accounts to Stamp Onice, and be ready to pay

duty fourteen days after offering to do so, or penalty of trebleduty.

" All these things can be done without a lawyer, if trusteesare wise and prudent; but an honest lawyer can advise withadvantage."The last paper read was as follows :-" Let me not forget my dreadful feelings (delirium tremem8)

after taking two or three pints of ale. Drink only water, andnever exceed of beer one pint or one glass. When I fail itis by thoughtlessness and want of firmness, also by an opinionthat I can stand a good deal of beer. The health, temper,and character of a beer-drinker are undermined. One shouldnever exceed a pint of beer a-day. I am better on water. - I.never was was so happy as on water. Take plenty of exercisein the open air, and live on water."I have only to remember my dreadful sufferings the

mornings after taking so much beer or wine. Low suicidal, feelings, despondent and gloomy thoughts, pulse 100 to 120,’ head dizzy, limbs tremulous, pains about heart, flatulence! and eructations, incapacity for duty of any kind, temper

irritable and overbearing, expensive habits, loss of time, for", getfulness of engagements, everything in disorder, and all for. what! Because I choose to take two pints of ale, or half a

bottle of wine." Never take beer or wine in the morning." Rule. Let me never exceed my quantum under any cir-

cumstances. Let me pass the decanters and not touch them.Let me not take wine and beer together. Two glasses of £wine are quite sufficient in twenty-four hours. Rise earlyfrom table. Avoid champagne and moselle.

" Rule. Never go into taverns for beer."Rule. Live quietly and unexpensively. Do not be in a

hurry to get rich-but work slowly and perseveringly, andsoberly. Eight hours rest. Always be doing some goodand useful work. Do not dwell on unpleasant affairs. Laughand be cheerful on water. When things go wrong, laugh andbe cheerful. Remember the happy lightsomeness of a water-drinker." Rule. Avoid suppers."Mr. Hewett kept out of drinking by his religions andmoral duties. Also by associating with old men. The

515

strength and cheerfulness of strong drinks induces great ex-haustion next day. Remember Mr. Cooper, Brodie, Quain,Sir J. Fife, Dr. Headlam, and Velpeau, all take very little."Mr. STEDMAN having concluded reading the above,The CORONER, addressing Mr. Erichsen, said-Having heard

the contents of these papers, are you now surprised at havingfound the arachnoid in a state of opacity ?Mr. ERICHSEN-Not at all, Sir; more especially as he speaks

of deliriunb tremens. The condition of the membrane I cle-scribed is often found in persons of intemperate habits.

CORONER—I should think that a small quantity of beer orspirits must have had a bad effect on this unhappy gentleman,and I do not believe it was necessary for him to take a largequantity before he suffered from its effects. [To Mr. Sted-man]- Are you, Sir, of opinion that the deceased was of soundmind ?Mr. STEDMAN-Not entirely sound. I think he had a

monomania on the subject of drinking.The CORONER said there could be no doubt, if Mrs. Morton

were called, she would be able to give more positive evidenceon this subject than any they had had; but in so painful acase he really thought this ought not to be required. Afterwhat they had heard, he thought the jury would be fullysatisfied in coming to the conclusion that the deceased tookthe poison while in an unsound state of mind. They hadheard it stated that when he came home on Monday night hestaggered, and in the last paper that had been read in the Ideceased’s hand-writing, the unfortunate gentleman described !,what were his feelings after taking too much wine or spiritsover night, and in one instance he actually admitted that hisfeelings were suicidal. Under these circumstances he thoughtthe jury would be fully justified in coming to a conclusionwithout requiring further evidence. It was a most deplorablecase. The deceased was a young man of great promise in hisprofession; a man of fine mind and of fine teeling, and univer-sally beloved by all who knew him. With these remarks heleft the case in their hands.The jury immediately returned a verdict to the effect, " that

the death had been caused by prussic acid, and that thedeceased had administered it to himself while he was in anunsound state of mind."The proceedings extended over nearly four hours, and

created much interest.The deceased has left a widow, who is the daughter of the

late Professor Samuel Cooper; and also a daughter four yearsof age, a reference to whom as Missie is made in the letterwhich was addressed by the deceased to Mrs. Morton.

OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE EVI-DENCE TO BE ADDUCED IN SUPPORT OF ANINDICTMENT AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL FORPRACTISING AS AN APOTHECARY WITHOUTLEGAL QUALIFICATION.

[THE following document has been issued anonymously.Even the name of the printer is not appended to it. Little

doubt, however, can be entertained that it has been issuedunder the authority of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries,and probably without any intended secrecy, concealment, ordisguise. The paper contains some very useful information,and we think that it ought to be circulated generally through- ’,out the profession. On the whole, the contents of the docu-ment exhibit a most extraordinary condition of the law whichrelates to the practice of medicine and surgery in this country,and it ought to attract the earnest attention of the membersof the profession and of both Houses of Parliament. L.

Thefollowing observations with respect to the evidence to be ad-duced in support of an indictment against an individual forpractising as an apothecary without legal qualification shouldbe placed in the hands of the solicitor retained to conduct theprosecution.

The offence imputed in these cases is, that the defendant, nothaving been in practice as an apothecary prior to the 1st ofAugust, 1815, has practised as an apothecary without havingobtained a certificate of qualification from the Court ofExaminers of the Society of Apothecaries, which is made anoffence by the 14th section of the Act 55 George III. c. cxciv.,commonly called the Apothecaries’ Act.The prosecutor should, in the first place, satisfy himself

that the defendant was not in practice as an apothecary priorto the 1st of August, 1815, and, in the next place, that he didnot hold a commission or warrant as surgeon or assistant-sur-geon in the navy or army, or in the service of the East India.Company, which bore date prior to the 1st of August, 1826.(6 Geo. IV. c. cxxxiii. s. 4. Stevenson v. Oliver, 8 Meesonand Welsby, 234. Millbanke v. Grant, 3 Ad. & Ell. N.S. 690.)

If the defendant is not exempt from the operation of theApothecaries’ Act on either of the grounds above referred to,and has practised as an apothecary without having obtainedthe certificate of qualification required by the Act, he is liableto be indicted for a misdemeanor under the 14th section ofthe Act, notwithstanding the pecuniary penalty imposed bythe 20th section.The practice of the apothecary consists in attending and

advising patients afflicted with diseases requiring medical (asdistinguished from surgical) treatment, and prescribing, com-pounding, and supplying medicines for their cure or relief.The class of cases which it is the province of the apothecaryto treat includes most of the diseases by which the humanframe is affected; for instance, diseases of the brain, the lungs,the heart, the stomach, the liver, and the bowels, when thedisorder is unattended by any external wound, sore, or

tumour, and when medical treatment, unaided by any manualoperation, is called for.

It is necessary, however, to be very careful in the selectionof the particular instances of practice, because the defendantwill probably endeavour to show, that in the cases given inevidence he acted in the character of a surgeon, or a man-midwife, or a druggist-in any character, in fact, but that ofan apothecary. The following cases may be referred to asillustrating the functions of the surgeon, the apothecary, andthe druggist, respectively. Alison v. Haydon, 4 Bing. 619.1 Moore and Payne, 588, S.C. Apoth. Co. v. Greenough, 1Q. B. R. 799. 1 Gale and Davidson, 378, S.C. Apoth. Co. v.Lotinga, 2 Moody and Robinson, 495.The first point, therefore, to establish in each case of prac-

tice, is the nature of the disease with which the patient wasafflicted; next, that the defendant attended the patient, andprescribed and supplied medicines for his cure or relief; andlastly, that the attendance and supply of medicines were witha view to gain.The disease may be proved either by the name given to it

by the defendant himself, or in the absence of any such directevidence, by the symptoms of the disease, as observed by thepatients themselves, or their friends. The defendant’s attend-ance may also be proved by the patients or their friends. Thesupply of medicines must be proved by the person who fetchedthem from the defendant’s house, or if they were sent by aservant of the defendant, that fact must be shown. The com-pounding of the medicines should be clearly brought home tothe defendant; and if the medicines were sent or fetched fromhis house, and it cannot be proved, in any of the cases givenin evidence, that the medicines were actually compounded inhis house, it would be well to be prepared with proof of hisbeing in possession of the means of compounding them.A bill delivered by the defendant is important evidence, as

proving frequently the attendance, the supply of medicine,and that both were rendered with an intention of being re-munerated for them. A bill, however, is not absolutelynecessary, as other evidence can be given to the same effect;for instance, that the defendant attended the patients asmedical men ordinarily do, and that he gave no intimationthat his services were gratuitous.Midwifery cases, and cases consequent upon childbirth, and

all cases where (although the disorder may be -in its main -fea-tures a medical case) there is any external wound, sore, ortumour, in addition, should be avoided.Evidence should be adduced of the defendant’s practice in

six or eight cases at least.It must be shown that the defendant has not obtained the

certificate of qualification required by the Act; and, in theabsence of a distinct admission by the defendant to that effect,the fact must be proved by the evidence of the proper officerof the Court of Examiners, and the production of their books.

It would be advisable to be prepared with general evidenceto negative the supposition that the defendant was in practicebefore the Ist of August, 1815; that his age, for instance,would not admit of his having been in practice at that period.

If the registrar of births, marriages, and deaths should havebeen in the habit of receiving the defendant’s certificates ofthe cause of death, such certificates will materially assist insupplying evidence of the defendant’s practice, inasmuch asnot only is the fact of attendance admitted on the face of thecertificate, but the disease of the patient is also stated.