1853

Fund. They accordingly recommended the following alloca-tion : 8 beds to the City of London Hospital for Diseases ofthe Chest, 4 beds to the Royal Hospital for Diseases of theChest, 3 beds to the London Hospital, and 3 beds to Guy’sHospital.The Duke of TECK, in moving the adoption of the

reports and awards, said that the reports afforded gratifyingevidence of the continued progress of the Fund. Theinvested capital was now very considerable, but the incomefrom investments provided less than half the amount dis-tributed, and for the balance reliance had to be made uponthe support of the charitable public, including the contribu-tions collected by the League of Mercy. Among the amountsreceived during the year His Serene Highness mentioned, withspecial gratitude; the sum of E500 received from His Majesty,the patron of the Fund, in augmentation, from E500 to f:1000,of the annual subscription he gave when President ; and alsothe annual subscription of .6100, with which H.R.H. thePrince of Wales had signified his interest in the Fund. The

receipts also included an annual subscription of E5000 fromMr. Walter Morrison, and an anonymous donation of £10,000.The amount distributed had again been increased. Last yearit reached, for the first time, a total sum of f:150,OOO. This

year £150,000 had been given to the hospitals alone, making,with f:5000 to consumption sanatoriums and convalescenthomes, a total of £155,000. The original goal of £150,000had thus been left behind, and in response to the neces-sarily increasing demands a fresh advance had been begun.He particularly drew attention to the grants for special pur-poses. In practicallv every case, he said, where such a

grant was at all large a scheme had been submitted by thehospital and carefully examined by the committee. This

practice ensured that the Fund knew and approved of themanner in which the grant was going to be spent. Referring toquestions that had arisen during the past two years as to theexact method of applying the recommendations of SirEdward Fry’s committee on the subject of hospitals andmedical schools, His Serene Highness said it was, and hadalways been, the intention of the Fund to carry out therecommendations of that committee in the letter and in the i

spirit. The report of the Convalescent Homes Committee showed that the scheme which they originated for placingbeds at consumption sanatoriums by means of grants fromthe Fund, at the disposal of patients in London Hospitalswho were urgently in need of country treatment, had nowtaken practical shape. A beginning could be made onJan. lst next, with 18 beds in three different sanatoriums. Itwas proposed that most of these beds should be allotted tothe two consumption hospitals which had no countrybranches of their own, and the remainder to two of thelargest general hospitals. It was not possible to secure anymore beds without making capital grants. But the com-mittee proposed to consider applications for capital grantsanother year. If the scheme on its present small scaleproved successful, it could be thus enlarged. The committeewould, of course, take due precautions to ensure that anyarrangement made should be fair to London, while the sana-toriums would doubtless see that it was fair to the localitiesfor which they were originally founded.The work of the Executive Committee had included this

year a consideration of the question of hospital contracts. Ithad often been suggested that it would be an advantage forthe hospitals of London to enter into joint contracts, and thussecure the advantages of purchasing on a larger scale thanthey could do as separate buyers. Last year a scheme was

actually started in New York, and the Executive Committeeappointed a subcommittee to inquire into the subject andascertain whether the Fund could usefully take any action inthe matter. The report of this subcommittee, of which Mr.John G. Griffiths acted as chairman, had recently been

issued, and he hoped that the careful statement which itcontained of the possible advantages and difficulties of

coöperative purchase by groups of independent voluntaryhospitals might be of assistance to the hospitals which werenow trying this experiment, or which might be thinking ofdoing so ; and that it might satisfy the public that thepossibilities of economy in this direction had not beenoverlooked.The CHIEF RABBI (the Rev. Dr. ADLER) seconded the

adoption of the reports, which was put and carried.The Duke of TECK, before announcing the appointments

for the coming year, alluded to the great loss the Fund had

sustained during the year in the death of Mr. Hugh C. Smith-who had served for so many years as a trustee, member of thecouncil, chairman of the Executive Committee, and latterlymember of Finance Committee, and also to the loss by deathof the very valuable services of Mr. John Langton as one of thevisitors of the Fund. With regard to the general council, it wasproposed to reappoint the whole of the members as at present,and the same with the Executive Committee and the FinanceCommittee. On the Distribution and Convalescent HomesCommittees it was proposed to reappoint the present membersexcept Mr. Partington, who had been prevented by ill-healthfrom taking a full share in the very arduous work of theDistribution Committee. He would join the ConvalescentHomes Committee, as would also Sir William Bennett, andMr. Leonard Cohen would be appointed to the DistributionCommittee.The services of three eminent Commissioners-Lord Mersey,

who would be chairman, Lord Northcote, and the Bishop ofStepney-had been secured for the committee which wouldinquire into the out-patient question and would begin workearly in 1911. The Executive Committee had recommendedthe following terms of reference :-To consider and report generally as to the circumstances and con-

ditions under which patients are admitted to the casualty and out-patient departments of the London voluntary hospitals, and especiallyas to what precautions are taken to prevent the admission of persons whoare unsuitable. and as to whether adequate provision is made for theadmission of such persons as are suitable ; and to make such recom-mendations as may seem to them desirable.

A vote of thanks to the Duke of Teck for presiding con-cluded the proceedings.

MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

Tuberculosis and Jlelk-steppdy : Question of Procedure raised’at Sunderland.

, AT Sunderland recently an inquiry was held by Mr. T. R.Colquhoun Dill, barrister- at-law, on behalf of the Board ofAgriculture and Fisheries, to whom a farmer had appealedagainst an order made by the Sunderland corporation. The

appellant supplied milk to a dairy in Sunderland, as did otherfarmers also. A sample of milk was taken in the street byan inspector under the corporation from a can belonging tothe dairy in question and was found on analysis to containthe bacilli of tuberculosis. The dairyman stated that themilk from which the sample in question came was fromthe appellant’s farm, and it was accordingly visited bythe medical officer of health of the corporation, who wasaccompanied by a veterinary surgeon. The farmer owneda herd of 20 cows, from whose milk he supplied the dairy,and 16 of these had already been submitted to the tuberculintest with negative results. The remaining four had not beenso tested, and the veterinary surgeon, who detected in threeof them no signs of tuberculous disease, observed what heconsidered to be suspicious indications affecting the udderof the fourth. The corporation, which was acting uponpowers given it by a local Act of Parliament obtainedby the borough of Sunderland in 1907, gave notice to thefarmer to appear before its health committee, andwhen he did not do so made an order prohibiting thesending of the milk of any of the four cows referredto above into the borough. The farmer then had thetuberculin test applied in the case of the cow withthe suspected udder, when it was found that there wasno reason to believe that she was affected with tuberculosis.This he communicated to the corporation, which rescinded theorder, so far as it affected the cow in question, leaving it asbefore in the case of the other three ; and against the order,as applied to them, the farmer appealed. It was argued uponhis behalf before Mr. Dill that the procedure adopted waswrong, as it cast upon the farmer the burden of proving thatthe three cows remaining under the order were free fromtuberculosis, without the corporation having first madeout a primá facie case that they were diseased. It was

pointed out that the Act under which the proceedingshad been taken gave power to inspect the cows and to takesamples of milk, and it was submitted that if after thisthe medical officer of health was of the opinion thattuberculous disease was caused, or likely to be caused, topersons residing in the borough and consuming the milk, anotice might then be served on the owner of the cows to

1854

attend before the health committee to show cause why anorder should not be made prohibiting him from supplyingmilk in the borough. A notice bad, as has been stated,been given to the farmer, who had not appeared in responseto it, and it was argued on his behalf that the necessaryconditions precedent to giving it and to making the order hadnot been 1 nlfilled. On behalf of the respondents it was

argued that they had complied with the Act of Parliament,and had made an entry upon the farmer’s premises and aninspection as required of them upon an order obtainedfrom a magistrate, but that a passage in the Act, to whichMr. Dill drew the attention of the town clerk, which pro-vides that" the medical officer of health may require " a cowto be milked in his presence and a sample to be taken foranalysis, merely permitted this to be done, but did notrender it necessary. It was urged that the corporation ascustodian of the public health, was entitled to act as ithad done, and if it entertained a suspicion with regard tothe three cows to continue its order against them until theappellant had shown that the animals were free from disease.After hearing the arguments and evidence adduced by bothsides, Mr. Dill intimated that he would report to the Board ofAgriculture and Fisheries and that the reply of the Boardwould follow in due course. The decision of the Board of

Agriculture and Fisheries has since been communicated tothe parties, and is to the effect that the order of the corpora-tion was made without due cause in so far as it related to thethree cows in question. The Board further found that the

appellant was not in default and withdrew the order madeagainst him, the costs of the appeal to be paid by thecorporation.

Action against a Farm Colony for the Loss of a Leq.A German named Max Wedler brought an action recently

in the High Court against the council and committee ofmanagement of a Gernan Industrial and Farm Colony atWare for damages for negligence and breach of duty on theirpart. He had been admitted to the colony and set to performsome digging after being supplied with shoes. He statedthat he complained of these that they were too large, butwas compelled to wear them and was refused permission towear his own, that while he was digging, earth got into theshoes and chafed his foot, and that on his informingMr. Mann, the manager, he was sent by him to a mancalled Theil, stated to be a " pensioner " in connexionwith the colony, who gave him a plaster. Theil alsotold him that he was suffering from gout and massagedhis foot. Later, the plaintiff become seriously ill, but

according to his statement, a medical man who wascalled in to see him did not examine his foot. Eventuallyhe was sent to the Herts County Hospital, where it wasfound that he was suffering from osteomyelitis, owing towhich his leg was amputated below the knee ; and the natureof the case was explained to the jury by Dr. C. E. Shelly,senior medical officer of the hospital. The same witness

expressed the opinion that an abrasion of the skin such asthat described would supply a very obvious means for theinfection which had taken place. Counsel on behalf of the

plaintiff contended that he had two causes of action-theneglect by the defendants of a duty to supply him with

clothing reasonably suited for the work he had to do, theevidence being that the shoes were too large and wereresponsible for the injury which caused his condition; and,secondly, the treatment given by Theil. Counsel for thedefence did not rely upon the defence of common employ-ment on the part of the plaintiff and Theil, but submittedthat apart from that there was no case for the defendantsto answer. This view was taken by Mr. Justice A. T.Lawrence, who held that there was no evidence of negligenceagainst the defendants ; there might possibly be a case

against Mann and Theil, who might, however, have an

answer to it. Judgment was accordingly given for thedefendants without the case being submitted to thejury.

A RAILWAY MEDICAL SCHOOL IN MANCHURIA.-We learn from a Shanghai correspondent that the SouthManchurian Railway Company is contemplating the estab-lishment of a medical school at Dairien, Manchuria, whereinstruction will be given in all the most modern methodsof medicine and surgery.

CENTRAL MIDWIVES BOARD.

SPECIAL meetings of the Central Midwives Board were heldon Dec. 13th and 15th, at Caxton House, Westminster, SirFRANCIS H. CHAMPNEY.s being in the chair.The Board considered the following charges, amongst

others, against the midwives whose names are givenbelow, and ordered them to be struck off the roll.For not explaining that the case was one in whichthe attendance of a registered medical practitioner wasrequired, nor handing to the husband or the nearestrelative or friend present the form of sending for medicalhelp, properly filled up and signed by her, in order that thismight be immediately forwarded to the medical practitioner,as required by Rule E. 19 (5) :-Margaret Aldred, being inattendance as a midwife at a confinement, the child havingbeen born prematurely, and being asphyxiated and feeble.Hannah Arrowsmith, being in attendance as a midwife at aconfinement, the patient suffering from headache andsickness and from high temperature. Ellen Calshaw, beingin attendance as a midwife at a confinement, the patientbeing ill, suffering from abdominal pains and high tempera-ture, with diarrhoea and vomiting. Sarah Chapman, beingin attendance as a midwife at a confinement, rigor occurringwith persistently offensive lochia and a high temperature.Mary Hannah Davis, being in attendance as a midwife at aconfinement, the child being ill. Mary Jane Dickenson, thepatient suffering from bronchitis. Adelaide Harker, being inattendance as a midwife at a confinement, the child suffer-ing from inflammation of the eyes. Kate Martin, being inattendance as a midwife at a confinement, the patient suffer-ing from a sedous rupture of the perineum. Mary Ann Miles,being in attendance as a midwife at a confinement, the childsuffering from inflammation of the eyes. The following werealso struck off the roll for the reasons given in each case :-Martha Holland, that she was convicted at the Oxford Citypolice-court of having been found drunk and incapable on apublic highway. Beatrice Inscoe, that she persistentlyrefused to submit to the reasonable supervision and inspectionof the local supervising authority or to conform to the rules ofthe Board, and with intent to evade such supervision andinspection she frequently changed her address without notify-ing the local supervising authority as required by Rule E. 20.Emily Jones, that being in regular attendance as a nurse upona patient suffering from uterine cancer, she neverthelesscarried on her practice as a midwife, contrary to the pro-visions of Rule E. 16, and without having undergone dis-infection to the satisfaction of the local supervising authorityas required by Rule E. 5. Marian Phillis McCormac, thatbeing in attendance at a confinement she was under theinfluence of alcohol when she delivered the patient ; afterthe delivery of the placenta she failed to remove it from theroom as required by Rule E. 10, but left it under the beduntil next day; and she was again under the influence ofalcohol and unable to speak clearly when she visited the

patient on the seventh day after the confinement. Edith MayDalchow, that at the Aylesbury petty sessions she pleadedguilty to a felony and was sentenced to one month’s imprison-ment. Sarah Susannah Emptage, that being in attendance as amidwife at a confinement she failed to adopt the antiseptic pre-cautions required by Rules E 3 and 7 ; she washed the baby’seyes with the water it had been bathed in, she washed thepatient with the same water and rag as she had used for thebaby, and she did not take the patient’s temperature at anytime. Sarah Flitton, that being in attendance as a midwifeat a confinement she did not take any antiseptic precautionswhatever ; she was uncleanly in her person, house, andclothing ; she nevtr employed antiseptics, being ignorant ofhow to use them ; and she never took the temperature of herpatients, not understanding the use of a clinical thermometer.Elizabeth Jane Haines, that she persistently neglected to makeherself acquainted with the obligations of the rules of theBoard. Julie Mitchell, that she was irregular in her attend-ance on her patients during the lying-in period, and that shepersistently failed to conform to the directions of the localsupervising authority. Amelia Wtlliamsand MercyAnnWilson,that notwithstanding repeated warnings they neglected andrefused to comply with the rules of the Board and thedirections of the local supervising authority. CatherineCharlton, that being in attendance as a midwife at a confine-ment she entered in her register that two children were