+ All Categories
Home > Documents > SEVENTH DAY.—JULY 7TH

SEVENTH DAY.—JULY 7TH

Date post: 03-Jan-2017
Category:
Upload: hoangkien
View: 215 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
3
64 Evans again ; and he told me he had not seen either the father or mother, but he had sent to the mother, and expected I her there every instant ; and almost as he said those words, the mother came. Mr. Evans wished me to see her alone. I de- clined to see her at all, and requested him to confer with his own client. He then saw her, while I went into the clerks’ room. Mr. Evans, in about five minutes, came and said she refused the arbitration, and in such a manner, that he thought I had better see her. I then saw her in presence of Mr. Evans, and urged upon her to agree to the arbitration, adding, that I was quite sure everybody connected with the hospital would Ao what was right; and I was quite sure that all the surgeons, and even the committee, would join in the reference. I told her there were always two sides to a question, and that whatever might be the result of a public inquiry, it would be injurious to the hospital. She said she only wanted to ascertain what were the facts as to the death of her child, but expressed herself unwilling to agree to the arbitration, and said she would see her husband on the subject. I told her to tell her husband that the inquiry might be as extensive as he liked, as well as the powers of the arbitrator, and that he should have the power also of dismissing any officer he liked, and to give the parents compensation under Lord Campbell’s Act. I told her they might appoint the arbitrator so as they would appoint an impartial person; that the arbitrator might be a barrister or a medical man, or both, if the parents liked. The mother said compensation was not her object. Some one had called upon her and offered to repay the expenses she had been at, and she would not take either a hatful or a roomful of gold. I called the next morning to know the result of the interview with Mr. Evans and the father of the child, but he was not at home, and Mr. Evans came to me at the Rolls’ Court, and handed me a paper, saying the arbitration was declined. On Tuesday, the 16th, Mr. Evans called upon me, and told me he had obtained medical evidence respecting the case, that he was perfectly satisfied he could make nothing of the inquest except for the purpose of information to found an action under Lord Campbell’s Act. He had seen the parents, and the parents wish to settle the matter, ’’ if you will pay a sum of money." I said it was an unpleasant position for me to put to my client, and it was a matter upon which I must act upon my own discretion one way or the other; that I felt as much for the hospital as my client, and probably I should do more than my client would. I said, if I mentioned it to him, or it wa ,thought for a moment my client gave any money, it might prejudice him as a medical man. I told Mr. Evans, as I felt I must in such a case act upon my own responsibility, I requested a few minutes’ time to consider. Mr. Evans said he would not act himself without a written consent from the father, and he would go into Holborn and get it, while I considered what I could do. He said his own expenses were very heavy indeed, but did not name the amount of them. He had paid expenses out of pocket, and he would take .il00 for compensation and expenses. Mr. Evans went away for about twenty minutes, and then came back with the authority signed by the father, stating he was satisfied with the medical evidence, and wished to withdraw the inquest. I then asked him if there were any parties in the background through whom the matter might gain publicity, as it was simply publicity I wished to prevent? He assured me positively that there was not, and I then offered him £50, and £50 a month hence, in order to insure us that this matter should not be made a subject of public dis- cussion in the newspapers. He assured me that there was no chance of the circumstances getting into the public press, and declined my proposition to receive the money in two sums of £50, and agreed that if I give him the £100, and the matter became public in any way, he would return me the money. (Laughter, in which the bar joined.) I then gave him £100 by check, which I produce. It was not crossed by me. By the CORONER.-I never consulted Mr. Cooke, either directly or indirectly, as to the payment of this .6100. Mr. Evans wished me to send the father of the child’s withdrawal of the inquest to Mr. Wakley, but I refused to do so, and I told Mr. Evans to do it himself. I had no communication, either directly or indirectly, with the Mr. Wakleys. Neither of the Mr. Wakleys knew anything of the matter, as far as I am aware of. From that time I have not spoken to Mr. Evans. By Mr. BALLANTINE.-My impression is, that I should not have settled the question had Mr. Evans not produced the father’s letter. I paid the money to prevent the publicity of an inquest, knowing that under any circumstances it would be injurious to the hospital and Mr. Cooke. I do not look to any one for the £100 I have paid. I have made no claim upon any one, and may not get a penny of it back again. I think the governors ought to pay the .E100, and protect their officers; but if they are shabby enough not to do so, I shall not ask them a second time. I have looked over Evans’s bill of costs, and have no hesitation in saying that it is twice as much as it ought to have been. Mr. BALLANTINE said, so far as his case was concerned, he had called all the witnesses he considered necessary to the inquiry. Mr. Evans had written him a letter, saying he was obliged to be out of town on the previous day, but why he was absent then he could not tell. He should certainly have liked him to be examined. He did not know whether his learned friends proposed to call any witnesses. Mr. Serjeant WILKINS said, he did not intend to call any witnesses; but, at the same time, if the jury wished to call, or Mr. Ballantine wished to call, his client, Mr. Wakley, jun., he was prepared to give the fullest explanation. Mr. PARRY said, that Mr. Wakley, as a public man and a, judge, had had his character publicly assailed, and therefore, with that straightforwardness of character which had distin- guished him through life, he tendered himself as a witness before that jury, to state everything he knew concerning the matter. At the same time, he disputed the right of the jury legally to enter into any other question than the circumstances relating to the death of this child. Considerable discussion ensued upon this point, and the jury, having been appealed to as to whether they wished any other witnesses to be called, consulted together, and the foreman announced that it was the opinion of the jury, that Mr. Evans should be examined after the evidence given by Mr. Steele; they did not desire that Mr. Wakley should be called. Mr. EvANS was again called, and not answering, it was ordered that he should be summoned for Friday, to which- day the investigation was again adjourned. SEVENTH DAY.—JULY 7TH. THE jury having answered to their names, the foreman stated that he had received an anonymous letter in reference to the case before them. He handed in the document, and, upon the suggestion of Mr. Bodkin, it was suppressed. Mr. PARRY again expressed the perfect willingness of his client, Mr. Wakley, the coroner, to be sworn. Had the jury expressed a wish he could have been examined before, but as, on the contrary, on the close of the last day’s inquiry, they had said the only witness they wished to hear was Mr. Evans, he was led to infer that they did not desire Mr. Wakley to be called. Mr. BALLANTiNE.-This might have so appeared from the observation of one or two of the jury, but he was not at all sure about such being the view of the gentlemen of the jury generally. A JUROR.-We are desirous to hear Mr. Wakley’s evi- dence. It was understood that Mr. Wakley would be called. Mr. PARRY was delighted to hear it ; he would put Mr. Wakley in the witness-box at any time he was desired. Mr. JOHN Evaxs was then sworn.-I reside at 12, Gray’s- inn-square, and am a solicitor. I have been applied to by Mr. Collett for my evidence, but have refused to give it to any one. On the 22nd of April last, I was employed by Mr. Gay, of Finsbury-place, to obtain information with reference to the death of a child under an operation in the Royal Free Hos- pital. He could not tell me the name of the child, nor its age, nor where its parents lived, nor when the operation took place. These events I was employed to find out, as Mr. Gay said he believed there had been gross misconduct on the part of persons connected with that establishment. The persons connected with that establishment had done all they could to ruin him, and he was determined to see what he could do with them. He asked me if I knew the circumstances under which lie had been dismissed from the hospital. I said, "Yes, I had been told of it, and had seen it in the public journals." As Mr. Gay was not known to me personally, I asked him to name the gentleman who had kindly recommended him to me. He said, " One of your clients, who lives next door to me- Mr. Borlase Childs." I was Mr. Child’s attorney. There was another gentleman present, whose name I do not know. Mr. Gay urged me to secresy, as far as he was concerned, and I promised to do so, and have kept my word till the present moment. Now I am under the solemn obligation of an oath. He said it was a difficult task for me, but, as he was told I could "furridge" out anything, I was to go to work. At this stage of the proceedings, LORD DUDLEY ST1:ART
Transcript

64

Evans again ; and he told me he had not seen either the father or mother, but he had sent to the mother, and expected Iher there every instant ; and almost as he said those words, themother came. Mr. Evans wished me to see her alone. I de-clined to see her at all, and requested him to confer with hisown client. He then saw her, while I went into the clerks’room. Mr. Evans, in about five minutes, came and said sherefused the arbitration, and in such a manner, that he thoughtI had better see her. I then saw her in presence of Mr.Evans, and urged upon her to agree to the arbitration,adding, that I was quite sure everybody connected with thehospital would Ao what was right; and I was quite sure thatall the surgeons, and even the committee, would join in thereference. I told her there were always two sides to a question,and that whatever might be the result of a public inquiry,it would be injurious to the hospital. She said she onlywanted to ascertain what were the facts as to the death ofher child, but expressed herself unwilling to agree to thearbitration, and said she would see her husband on the

subject. I told her to tell her husband that the inquirymight be as extensive as he liked, as well as the powersof the arbitrator, and that he should have the power alsoof dismissing any officer he liked, and to give the parentscompensation under Lord Campbell’s Act. I told her theymight appoint the arbitrator so as they would appoint animpartial person; that the arbitrator might be a barrister or amedical man, or both, if the parents liked. The mother saidcompensation was not her object. Some one had called uponher and offered to repay the expenses she had been at, and shewould not take either a hatful or a roomful of gold. I calledthe next morning to know the result of the interview withMr. Evans and the father of the child, but he was not at home,and Mr. Evans came to me at the Rolls’ Court, and handed mea paper, saying the arbitration was declined. On Tuesday,the 16th, Mr. Evans called upon me, and told me he hadobtained medical evidence respecting the case, that hewas perfectly satisfied he could make nothing of the inquestexcept for the purpose of information to found an action underLord Campbell’s Act. He had seen the parents, and theparents wish to settle the matter, ’’ if you will pay a sum ofmoney." I said it was an unpleasant position for me to putto my client, and it was a matter upon which I must act uponmy own discretion one way or the other; that I felt as muchfor the hospital as my client, and probably I should do morethan my client would. I said, if I mentioned it to him, or itwa ,thought for a moment my client gave any money, it mightprejudice him as a medical man. I told Mr. Evans, as I felt Imust in such a case act upon my own responsibility, I requesteda few minutes’ time to consider. Mr. Evans said he wouldnot act himself without a written consent from the father, andhe would go into Holborn and get it, while I considered whatI could do. He said his own expenses were very heavy indeed,but did not name the amount of them. He had paid expensesout of pocket, and he would take .il00 for compensation andexpenses. Mr. Evans went away for about twenty minutes,and then came back with the authority signed by the father,stating he was satisfied with the medical evidence, and wishedto withdraw the inquest. I then asked him if there were anyparties in the background through whom the matter mightgain publicity, as it was simply publicity I wished to prevent?He assured me positively that there was not, and I thenoffered him £50, and £50 a month hence, in order to insure usthat this matter should not be made a subject of public dis-cussion in the newspapers. He assured me that there was nochance of the circumstances getting into the public press, anddeclined my proposition to receive the money in two sums of£50, and agreed that if I give him the £100, and the matterbecame public in any way, he would return me the money.(Laughter, in which the bar joined.) I then gave him £100by check, which I produce. It was not crossed by me.By the CORONER.-I never consulted Mr. Cooke, either

directly or indirectly, as to the payment of this .6100. Mr.Evans wished me to send the father of the child’s withdrawalof the inquest to Mr. Wakley, but I refused to do so, and Itold Mr. Evans to do it himself. I had no communication,either directly or indirectly, with the Mr. Wakleys. Neitherof the Mr. Wakleys knew anything of the matter, as far as Iam aware of. From that time I have not spoken to Mr. Evans.By Mr. BALLANTINE.-My impression is, that I should not

have settled the question had Mr. Evans not produced thefather’s letter. I paid the money to prevent the publicity ofan inquest, knowing that under any circumstances it would beinjurious to the hospital and Mr. Cooke. I do not look to anyone for the £100 I have paid. I have made no claim upon any

one, and may not get a penny of it back again. I think the

governors ought to pay the .E100, and protect their officers;but if they are shabby enough not to do so, I shall not ask thema second time. I have looked over Evans’s bill of costs, andhave no hesitation in saying that it is twice as much as itought to have been.Mr. BALLANTINE said, so far as his case was concerned, he

had called all the witnesses he considered necessary to theinquiry. Mr. Evans had written him a letter, saying he wasobliged to be out of town on the previous day, but why he wasabsent then he could not tell. He should certainly have likedhim to be examined. He did not know whether his learnedfriends proposed to call any witnesses.

Mr. Serjeant WILKINS said, he did not intend to call anywitnesses; but, at the same time, if the jury wished to call, orMr. Ballantine wished to call, his client, Mr. Wakley, jun.,he was prepared to give the fullest explanation.

Mr. PARRY said, that Mr. Wakley, as a public man and a,judge, had had his character publicly assailed, and therefore,with that straightforwardness of character which had distin-guished him through life, he tendered himself as a witness beforethat jury, to state everything he knew concerning the matter.At the same time, he disputed the right of the jury legally toenter into any other question than the circumstances relatingto the death of this child.

Considerable discussion ensued upon this point, and the jury,having been appealed to as to whether they wished any otherwitnesses to be called, consulted together, and the foremanannounced that it was the opinion of the jury, that Mr. Evansshould be examined after the evidence given by Mr. Steele;they did not desire that Mr. Wakley should be called.Mr. EvANS was again called, and not answering, it was

ordered that he should be summoned for Friday, to which- daythe investigation was again adjourned.

SEVENTH DAY.—JULY 7TH.

THE jury having answered to their names, the foreman statedthat he had received an anonymous letter in reference to thecase before them. He handed in the document, and, upon thesuggestion of Mr. Bodkin, it was suppressed.Mr. PARRY again expressed the perfect willingness of his

client, Mr. Wakley, the coroner, to be sworn. Had the juryexpressed a wish he could have been examined before, but as,on the contrary, on the close of the last day’s inquiry, theyhad said the only witness they wished to hear was Mr. Evans,he was led to infer that they did not desire Mr. Wakley to becalled.

Mr. BALLANTiNE.-This might have so appeared from theobservation of one or two of the jury, but he was not at allsure about such being the view of the gentlemen of the jurygenerally.A JUROR.-We are desirous to hear Mr. Wakley’s evi-

dence. It was understood that Mr. Wakley would be called.Mr. PARRY was delighted to hear it ; he would put Mr.

Wakley in the witness-box at any time he was desired.Mr. JOHN Evaxs was then sworn.-I reside at 12, Gray’s-

inn-square, and am a solicitor. I have been applied to by Mr.Collett for my evidence, but have refused to give it to any one.On the 22nd of April last, I was employed by Mr. Gay, ofFinsbury-place, to obtain information with reference to thedeath of a child under an operation in the Royal Free Hos-pital. He could not tell me the name of the child, nor its age,nor where its parents lived, nor when the operation tookplace. These events I was employed to find out, as Mr. Gaysaid he believed there had been gross misconduct on the partof persons connected with that establishment. The personsconnected with that establishment had done all they could toruin him, and he was determined to see what he could do withthem. He asked me if I knew the circumstances under whichlie had been dismissed from the hospital. I said, "Yes, I hadbeen told of it, and had seen it in the public journals." AsMr. Gay was not known to me personally, I asked him toname the gentleman who had kindly recommended him to me.He said, " One of your clients, who lives next door to me-Mr. Borlase Childs." I was Mr. Child’s attorney. There wasanother gentleman present, whose name I do not know. Mr.

Gay urged me to secresy, as far as he was concerned, and Ipromised to do so, and have kept my word till the presentmoment. Now I am under the solemn obligation of an oath.He said it was a difficult task for me, but, as he was told Icould "furridge" out anything, I was to go to work.

At this stage of the proceedings, LORD DUDLEY ST1:ART

65

entered the court, and was immediately sworn. He said-I go to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a mandamus if an inquestapplied to Lord Palmerston to request that some investigation was not ordered. It was not Mr. Brent I saw. He went up

in this affair should be made. I was induced to do so at the stairs and brought down a slip of paper with an address, andinstance of a gentleman named Courtenay, who said he was a said I might find Mr. Wakley holding -an inquest somewhereconstituent of mine ; and he then stated to me the nature of near Fitzroy-square, but he was not certain. He asked me tothe case, and said the child also belonged to a constituent of come about half-past six, when the coroner might have returnedmine, and that I ought to see that an inquiry took place. I home. I sent my clerk, Crump, and he brought me back atold him I was very sorry, and had known Mr. Wakley for message that the coroner thought

the second notice would do;some time, and was on friendly terms with him ; but when he and he wished to see me and Mr. and Mrs. Richardson at tenmade an appeal to me as an act of public duty, I said, o’clock the following morning (Thursday, the llth). I at-

Very well." He (the noble lord) promised that if a memorial tended there with my client, and saw lir. Wakley. Hewere drawn up, he would present it to the Secretary of State. questioned Mrs. Richardson, and asked who instigated theseHe did not know Mr. Courtenay personally, but he had since proceedings. Mrs. Richardson said she was not satisfiedascertained that he was a respectable surgeon, in Marylebone. about the death of her child, and she had. He asked her ifHe did not know that Mr. Courtenay was an advertising she had had any money given to her, and she replied, "No."surgeon, that he advertised cures for secret diseases, (Mr. He then asked her the particulars of the case, and who was

Courtenay, "Nor is it true that I do so,") and that he was on the operator, and I think she said Mr. Cooke. Mr. Wakley,terms of personal hostility to Mr. Wakley. The noble lord pro- the coroner, said he would let me know by four o’clockceeded to say, that he received a memorial from Mr. Courtenay, whether he would hold the inquest, and he directed thewith a note addressed to himself. He met Mr. Wakley acci- summoning officer, Bridges, to make the inquiries. I said

dentally, and told him the circumstances. Mr. Wakley ex- that would not do, and unless I had an answer before I left thepressed himself much obliged for the course the noble lord had room, I should go down to the Queen’s Bench and apply for ataken ; and the memorial was presented. mandamus. He questioned Mrs. Richardson again as to her

Cross-examined by Mr. BILLANTINE. -Might have heard own wish, and if she had received any money, which she denied.that Mr, Courtenay advertised, but could not say that he He then said, " You appear a respectable woman, and youknew such to be the case. A memorial and statement were shall have an inquest ;" and he asked me for a list of witnesses,handed to him by Mr. Courtenay, and he forwarded the same, I then left. I saw Mr. Gay the next morning, by appointment,together with a note, to Lord Palmerston. Mr. Courtenay at the Gray’s-inn Coffee-house, and he desired to have counsel athad stated, that he. had only heard of the case a few days the inquest. I suggested to him Mr. Parry, but he declined,before calling upon him (the noble lord.) and said he would rather have Mr. Ballantine, as he was the

Lord Dudley Stuart was retiring from the court, when- inveterate enemy of the Wakleys. I said, " I have neverMr. PARRY begged to repeat, that Mr. Wakley, the coroner, heard that, but, be that as it may, I suppose he will do his

felt obliged to the noble lord for his courtesy in this matter. duty." I went to Mr. Ballantine, and asked him if he wouldMr. BALLANTINE.-Yes, and the public also are deeply take the case, and he agreed to do so; and I retained him.

indebted to his lordship for having promoted this important Mr. Gay insisted on retaining Mr. Ballantine, saying that hisinvestigation. fees would be ready whenever witness pleased. Mr. Steele

Mr. EVANS recalled.-I was from the 22nd of April to the subsequently called on me, and said he understood I was the6th of May finding out this matter. I got it by stratagem at attorney for the inquest, and would my clients consent to athe hospital. I went to the hospital, and while there I saw a "private" instead of a public inquiry? He said he was muchbook, and while the officer just stepped out I turned over the interested in the hospital, and he supposed I wanted anleaf, and found it out. (Laughter.) I had been frequently to inquest as a preliminary step for damages. I said " Yes ;"the hospital, and to all the undertakers and burial-grounds, and he suggested, as it was a money matter, an arbitrator,but could not find it out. On the following Monday I sent who would have power to award compensation, and to decidefor Mrs. Richardson to my chambers, and asked her to tell me upon the conduct of the doctors, and to dismiss them if it wasthe particulars as to her child’s death; and she did so. I thought proper. (The witness here described the interviewasked her if she should like me to take the matter up for her. between Mr. Steele and Mrs. Richardson, as to the holding aShe said she should, but that her husband was a poor man, " private" inquest.) I saw Mr. Gay that night, and toldand could not afford to pay for law. I told her she need not him what had been done-I was ostensibly acting for thetrouble herself about that. She then said that she was not Richardsons, but in reality for Mr. Gay-and he said I was tosatisfied about the stone being taken out of the bladder, and have no compromise, but to go on. I heard the inquest wasthat she heard the operation lasted two hours. I suggested to to be held on the following Monday, and sent a letter to Mr.her an inquest, and told her to go to the constable of the Steele, inquiring if Mr. Wakley was going to hold the inquestparish about it, and to get his answer for me, and let me see himself, and hoping, for particular reasons, he was not goingher husband as soon as possible. She called at nine o’clock to do so. I received a reply, that he knew nothing about it.the same evening, and told me her husband had seen the Subsequently I heard the inquest was postponed, and wrote toconstable, but that he declined to do anything without the Mr. Wakley expressing surprise at the delay ; then heard theorder of the coroner, as the child had been buried so long. I inquest was to be held on the 16th. Saw Mr. Gay, by appoint-gave her my card, and Mr. Wakley’s (the coroner’s) address, ment, the same evening, as he had previously arranged to giveand told her to make my compliments to him, and to say that me the names of the medical men who were to be examined;I was professionally engaged in the case, and wished an and he said he was afraid he could not get them to come. jinquest; and to tell the coroner the same tale she had told said, " Then you must be examined yourself." " He said " Oh,me. On the 9th of May, she came to tell me she had been no ; I would not for the world." He said that Mr. Coulsonto the coroner’s office, and she feared an inquest would not had been ordered to make the post-mortem, and that he fearedbe held. She said the gentleman she saw wished to hear from his opinion was dead against us. He also said, "I am givenme in writing ; and I then wrote the notice, dated May 9th, to understand that the operation did not last near so long asand sent it to the coroner’s office by my clerk, Mr. Crump, we expected, and I fear you will make nothing of the case."and I received a written answer, stating that the coroner He said, " The fact is, it has got wind that you are engagedcould not hold an inquest on such an informal notice. for me." I protested I had never revealed the fact ; and heI received this answer on the morning of the 10th, and I pre- replied, " Well, it has brought down the indignation of thepared another notice, and went to Marchmont-place to get the whole profession upon me. I wish I was out of it. You hadsignature of the parents to it. I found Mrs. Richardson and better see the Richardsons, and get them to withdraw." Iher brother there, but not Mr. Richardson. I read the notice told him it was not likely that Richardson would withdraw,to her, and asked her for her signature. She said she could as he expected to get some money out of it, and that the costsnot write. Her brother said, " Oh, yes, you can write your were already very heavy. He made me promise to do thename;" and she said she feared she could not, she was so ill. best I could to get the case withdrawn. (The witness hereShe then tried to write her name, and got through half of it, detailed the interview with Richardson at his employer’s, Mr.and I finished it for her. I told her I must have her husband’s Baddeley’s, in Oxford-street, when he induced him to sign thesignature, as I had received instructions to get a mandamus withdrawal of the inquest.) Told him when he talked aboutfor an inquest if refused, and I was driven up for time. I was the expense he had been at, that I had no doubt, if he with-instructed to obtain that mandamus by Mr. Gay. Mrs. drew now, the parties would pay the costs, and somethingRichardson suggested that her brother should sign her hus- more. Richardson said, then he would take .620. I drew up aband’s name to the notice, and he did so. I went straight to withdrawal of the inquest, and read it to Richardson, andthe coroner’s office with my notice, but he was out, and I gave asked him if that was what he wanted ? He said, " Yes ;" butthe notice to the clerk, and he read it. I told him I meant to he must have the .E20. He then signed it, and I arranged with

66

Richardson to come to my chambers, and I would give him the£20, if I had got the money. (The witness here described hisvisit to Mr. Steele, in Lincoln’s-inn-fields, to receive the £100,for suppressing the inquest.) When Mr. Steele gave me thecheque for the £100, he said, "Now, Mr. Evans, I keep quitealoof in doing this from my client, and am acting upon myown responsibility. I think I am doing the best I can for myclient, and, if it is known that a medical man gives money, itwill do him great injury." Mr. Steele then said, " I rely uponyour honour to keep this secret, and, if any publicity is givento it, I shall expect the £100 back again." (Laughter.) WhenMr. Steele made the observation, I laughed at him, and helaughed too. It is not true that I ever, in the event of thematter becoming public, promised to return the money. Iwent with the cheque at once to Gosling and Sharpe’s, thebankers, (loud laughter,) and got the money. I took the moneyto my chambers, and counted out the twenty sovereigns in thepresence of my clerk, Crump, put them into an old envelope,and told him to give the money to Richardson when he came.I wrote to Mr. Gay to tell him I had settled the matter, andhad received .6100, and I returned him the check he had givenme for .68 to pay counsel’s fees. Richardson came to my office,and I was engaged with two gentlemen, but I heard myclerk say to Mr. Richardson, "Mr. Evans has left this foryou," and as he gave him the envelope containing the sove-reigns I heard the money chink. The witness here de-tailed his interview with Mr. Brent, the deputy-coroner, be-tween the receipt of the money and the renewed demand ofRichardson for an inquest. I went to Mr. Baddeley’s to seeRichardson, and saw him write a paper, and cautioned Richard-son, when the party who was with him, who I have sinceheard was Mr. Webber, snatched it up and put it in his pocket.He laid hold of my arm, and came out with me, and said hewas a friend of Mr. Gay’s, and he was sure he did not want itstopped. I induced Mr. Webber to go with me in a cab toAlr. Gay’s house, and we saw Mr. Gay. On reaching Mr.Gay’s, that gentleman said, "What does this mean?" Con-versation was entered into upon the matter, and Mr. Gay wasless anxious to go on than he had been. I told him what Mr.Webber said, that he had a document in his pocket, signed byRichardson, and he read it. Mr. Gay then said, ’’ Oh, let thematter rest. " I heard nothing of the matter further until the26th of May, when Mr. Webber called and said he had nothingto do with the statements which had appeared in some of thejournals. On the same day, Messrs. Pritchard and Collettcalled and made a demand for all documents I had in mypossession relating to the case of the Richardsons, as I hadreceived my costs. I was out at the time, and received a threatfrom Messrs. Pritchard and Collett that proceedings would betaken to recover the papers unless I gave them up. Gave upthe papers to Mr. Collett, and he said it was whispered that Ihad received a large sum of money, and I told him what I hadreceived and what my costs were, which I considered werefairly earned by me, and I offered to send my bill of costs toMr. Collett; but he said, "No, you had better send it toRichardson." I went to Mr. Gay’s to tell him that the stormwas coming, and that I should be compelled to speak the truth.The witness here read a letter he had received that morningfrom Mr. Webber, dated from Norwich, in which he declaredthat an attempt was to be made to make a scapegoat of him(Evans) by getting him into the witness-box, but that justiceshould be done to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. BALLANTINE.-Mr. Gay was hisclient from the 22nd of April until the day he received the£100. Mr. Gay asked him to keep the communications secret.He should leave the jury to judge in what capacity he receivedthe communications from Mr. Gay. Had sworn that he neverrevealed the fact of Mr. Gay being connected with the case.He had told Mr. Webber that he had acted for Mr. Gay. Mr.Richardson was under the impression that he was acting as hisattorney. The interests of both were identical. When Iretained the .iS5 I had not made out my bill of costs. I toldRichardson I was acting for him. I often went to the hospitalbefore I got a private peep at the book. I saw a man in a redcoat, and asked if he knew of a child who had died from anoperation. He asked me the name; and, as I could not tellhim, I was done. The reason I told Mr. Wakley that fouro’clock would not do was that I intended to apply for a man-ilamus, and that was the last day of term.By Mr. PARRY.-I might have obtained a rule nisi, but the

mandamus might have gone over till Trinity Term. I remem-ber that Mr. Wakley asked Mrs. Richardson, almost the lastquestion, whether she had reason to believe her child had diedfrom improper treatment ? She replied that she wished to be

satisfied, and Mr. Wakley granted the inquest. This was on

Thursday, the llth, at half-past ten A.M. He had never seenthe Richardsons till May 8th. When he saw Mr. Gay, on the22nd of April, he said that he had heard there had been strangegoings on at the hospital. He appeared to be smarting underinjuries, and said that he had been suddenly expelled from thehospital to make room for some one who then filled his place.He said he had been greatly ill-used in being dismissed fromthe hospital after nearly twenty years’ service to the public.I will swear he never said he had a desire to injure the hospital.He did not, on my oath, say that he desired to do anything toinjure the Wakleys. He said if one half of the things whichhe had heard had occurred at the hospital were true, thenthat the public ought to know it. He never said a word about"that he had a desire to injure the Wakleys," or any one else- and I will swear that he never said he desired to ruin theWakleys. I would not have taken up a ca.e to ruin any man.He said he wished to expose the present state of things at theRoyal Free Hospital. When he told me that he would haveMr. Ballantine engaged as the inveterate enemy of theWakleys, I believe he meant that Mr. Ballantine was the mostlikely man to fish all the matters out connected with thisinquiry.

Mr. BALLANTINE wished to say that he had been once pro-fessionally engaged against Mr. Wakley, and then he hadendeavoured to do his duty. Since then he had met and re-ceived courtesy at his hands, and had extended the same tothat gentleman.By Mr. WAIN-WRIGHT, Mr. Gay’s solicitor.-Mr. Gay had said

that he had received information as to improper practices atthe hospital. He did not mention any name.

Cross-examination continued.--He had treated Mr. Gay andMr. Richardson as his clients. After it came to a question ofan inquest, it was entered in his books as Richardson’s case.Mr. WEBBER considered that he was entitled to to say some-

thing in reply to the accusation of the learned counsel. What-ever means he may have taken to elicit the statements in thiscase, the facts would be found the same.By Mr. WEBBER.-Did not recollect having said that he

could come down upon Richardson. Never said that he shouldbe a ruined man, and would let out the whole. Had not saidwho had stopped the inquest. He said he knew that Mr. Gaywanted to stop the inquest.Mr. WEBBER was about proceeding in his examination, when

Mr. Parry interposed, and remarked that he considered themode of proceeding irregular.Mr. WEBBER thought that he had a right to be heard after

the accusations made against him by the learned counsel, andalso to cross-examine the witness, who had made many mis-statements.The CORONER saw no chance of concluding the inquiry that

day; in fact, he could not say when it would be concluded;for each day fresh collateral matter was introduced. A letterhad reached him upon the subject of the inquiry, and he foundthat it would be necessary, at the suggestion of the committee,to call some more witnesses from the hospital.Some of the jury said that they thought now, after the evi-

dence of Mr. Evans, there would be no necessity to examineMr. Wakley; but

I Mr. PARRY reiterated the desire of Mr. Wakley, the coroner,to be sworn; and ultimately the proceedings were again ad-journed for a week.

EIGHTH DAY—JULY 14TH.

MR. BODKIN said, before the proceedings were resumed, hebegged to express a hope that the general public, who were ad-mitted to hear this case, would not continue to give expressionto their feelings, either by applause or disapprobation, as

they had done, just as if they were in a theatre. Should therebe a repetition of such conduct, he should certainly advise thecoroner to clear the court.The various parties concerned were represented by their

respective counsel.Mr. METCALFE said he represented the committee of the

Royal Free Hospital, in consequence of certain misstatementswhich had been made in the evidence, connecting the manage-ment of the hospital with this case, more especially the state-ment of Mr. Steele, the attorney, that the authorities of thehospital were ready to agree to an arbitration, and that any ofthe medical officers the parents liked might be dismissed. Hewas there to repudiate the whole of this statement, or that Mr.Steele was authorized to give the £100 on the part of the


Recommended