98

to the provisions of the following section of this ordinance, thedegree of Doctor of Medicine shall not be conferred on anyperson unless he be a graduate in Arts within the fifth sectionof this ordinance ; or unless he shall, before, or at the time ofhis obtaining the degree of Bachelor of Medicine, or withinthree years thereafter, have passed a satisfactory examinationin Greek, and in Logic or Moral Philosophy, and in one atleast of the following subjects-namely, French, German,higher Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, and Natural His-tory.XX. The degree of Doctor of Medicine may be conferred by

the University of St. Andrews on any registered medical 1)rac-titioner above the age of forty years, whose professional positionand experience are such as in the estimation of the Universityto entitle him to that degree, and who shall, on examination,satisfy the medical examiners of the sufficiency of his profes-sional knowledge : Provided always that degrees shall not beconferred under this section to a greater number than ten inany one year.XXI. Except under the provisions of the twentieth section,

the degree of Doctor of Medicine shall not be conferred on anyperson who has not previously obtained the degree of Bachelorof Medicine.

C)

XXII. The Senatus Academicus shall, from time to time, asthey think expedient, appoint the period or periods of the yearat which degrees in Medicine shall be conferred.XXIII. No degrees in Medicine shall, after the 1st day of

January, in the year 1863, be conferred by the University ofSt. Andrews, except on candidates who have complied withthe terms of this ordinance.XXIV. There shall be paid by each candidate for the degree

of Bachelor of Medicine a fee of five guineas in respect of eachof the three divisions of the examination on professional sub-jects specified in the eleventh section of this ordinance, eachsuch fee of five guineas being payable at the time at which thecandidate comes forward to be examined in that division in

respect of which it is payable ; and if the candidate desires tobe admitted to the degree of Bachelor of Medicine only, heshall not on admission thereto be required to pay any furtherfee in addition to the fifteen guineas so paid by him; but if hedesires to be admitted to the degree of Master in Surgery also,lie shall, on being admitted to such degree, pay a further feeof five guineas ; and every candidate for the degree of Doctorof Medicine, who has previously obtained the degree of Bache-lor of Medicine, shall pay, in addition to the fees paid by himas a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Medicine, a fee offive guineas, exclusive of any stamp duty which may for thetime be exigible; and any person presenting himself as a can-didate for the degree of Doctor of Medicine under the twentiethsection of this ordinance, without having previously obtainedthe degree of Bachelor of Medicine, shall, on so presenting him-self, pay a fee of fifty guineas, inclusive of any stamp dutywhich may for the time be exigible.XXV. The Faculty of Medicine in the said University shall

include the Professor of Medicine, the Professor of Chemistry,and, in the event of the Professorship of Civil History beingby competent authority changed into a Professorship of NaturalHistory, the Professor of Natural History.XXVI. After the confirmation of this ordinance by her

Majesty in Council, no principal or professor in the said Uni-versity shall receive any payment out of the fees to be paid bycandidates for degrees in Medicine; with this exception only,that it shall be lawful for the Senatus Academicus, out of suchfees, to pay to the present Professor of Medicine during his in-cumbency, and to the present Professor of Chemistry duringhis incumbency, such annual or other sums respectively asmay from time to time be fixed by the Senatus Academicus,with the approval of the University Court.

MEDICAL T R I A L S.

YORK ASSIZES.

(Before Mr. BARON WILDE.)-4CB:ARGE OF WILFUL MURDER AGAINST A SURGEON, AND OF

RETURNING A FALSE CERTIFICATE TO THE REGISTRAR OF

DEATHS.

A CASE of considerable importance to the profession and thepublic has lately been tried at the York Assizes. The prisoner,William Randall Mackley, was placed at the bar, charged onindictment, and also on the Coroner’s inquisition, with the wil-

ful murder of Martha Curtis, of Great Horton, on the 26th ult.The prisoner pleaded not guilty to this charge, and also to asubsequent indictment for returning a false certificate to theregistrar of deaths.The facts of the case were thus stated by Mr. PRICE, the

counsel for the prosecution :-The prisoner was a surgeon re-siding at Great Horton, in the neighbourhood of Bradford, andthe deceased woman, Martha Curtis, aged thirty-three, hadbeen his servant or housekeeper, her father having been aservant in the house of Dr. Mackley, sen., the father of theprisoner, living at Willesden, a neighbouring place. The pri-soner and the deceased were the only inmates of the house atHorton. The last time the deceased had been seen abroad wasa week before the day of her death, Wednesday, June 26th,and she then called at the house of a neighbour, but did notthen complain of being unwell. The jury would find thatduring the subsequent week of her illness and until her deaththe prisoner did not call in any of the neighbours to attendupon her and administer to her wants, but locked the house upwhen he went upon his rounds, leaving the woman alone in itunattended to. On the 25th, the day before her death, hewrote a letter to the father of the poor woman at Willesden,stating that she was ill and suffering from cholera and stomachaffection, but expressing his hope that she might recover, andasking that one of her sisters might come to attend on her. Ifthe jury found that these were not the affections under whichshe was suffering, but that her illness was of a totally differentnature, easily distinguishable from those specified, and that theneighbours were not admitted to the house, it might influencethem in arriving at a decision in the cass. The poor woman’smother came to attend her on the 25th, after receiving theprisoner’s letter, and the deceased made no statements to herindicating the prisoner’s guilt, but that might be accounted forconsistently with the theory of the prosecution by the naturaldesire of the deceased to screen herself and her family fromshame. The servant died on the 26th of June, and it be-came necessary for the prisoner to return a certificate of thedeath. It would be found that the certificate given containedtwo direct falsehoods. It was dated the 24th of June, andassigned the date of the death to be the 23rd, instead of the26th, the real day. This certificate was given to the fatherof the deceased, who could not read. Further, the cause ofdeath was stated to be enteritis, whereas the real cause waspuerperal fever caused by abortion. The medical witnesseswould tell them that it was impossible for a practitioner tomake a mistake between the diseases. They had arrived at aseries of conclusions, some of which were certain, and others ina degree conjectural. It was certain that there had been a re-cent delivery of a six months’ child, and that there was nomalformation rendering a premature delivery necessary. Therewere no symptoms of suffering from diarrhoea or bowel com-plaint. A conclusion which was not so certain was that de-livery had been induced by a puncture of the womb by someinstrument. The inquest was held on the 2nd of July, andpostponed to give an opportunity for an examination of theremains. On that being made, a great quantity of plaisterwas found adhering to the body in a manner calculated tocause suspicions. There was, besides, the direct testimony ofa Mr. Field, a surgeon in the neighbourhood, who would statethat a week before the woman’s death the prisoner came to seehim, and dined with him, and discussed the means of producingabortion at six months, stating that he was in a devil of a fix,as he had a young woman with child six months gone, and hadtried every means to procure abortion and failed. He wouldbe in part corroborated by his servant, Jane Law. In additionto this, some articles of the clothing of the deceased werefound in a portmanteau of the prisoner, discoloured in a pecu-liar manner. A tin instrument had, besides, been ordered bythe prisoner of a tinman in the village shortly before the death,such as would assist in the operation alleged against the pri-soner. If this evidence made it distinctly clear to the mindsof the jury that the death of the young woman resulted from apremature delivery induced by the prisoner, they could notescape the duty of pronouncing him guilty.The following is the medical evidence adduced :-Mr. WILLIAM PARKINSON.-I am a surgeon, and have been

in practice in Bradford about fourteen years. I have been four

years surgeon to the Bradford Infirmary. I was called to makean examination of the body of Martha Curtis, and was assistedby Mr. Terry. When the coffin was opened, and the grave-clothes taken off, the first thing that we noticed was a plasterplaced upon that part of the body where the injuries were likelyto have been caused. We opened the stomach; it was empty.The breasts were enlarged. The ring round the left breast was

99

dark, and the follicles distinct, which are indications of preg-nancy. On removing the plaster there was a slight discharge.The peritoneal coats of the intestines were inflamed. Variousmarks were found of recent delivery; and our opinion is thatshe had been delivered shortly before death. There was nothingin the formation of the deceased giving rise to the necessity ofpremature delivery. The cause of her death was peritonitis.There were no signs to enable a medical man to speak withcertainty as to the cause of the peritonitis. I can speak withcertainty as to her having been delivered shortly before death;I think within four or five days. The use of a wire to procureabortion in the manner above spoken to at six months wouldbe likely to produce peritonitis. Premature labour at sixmonths is not generally followed by this complaint. If a punc-ture of the membranes had been followed by prolonged labour,it would be likely to be followed by peritonitis. A punctureeffected by a medical man would not be discoverable afterdeath. I found no traces of diarrhoea or constipation, which Iam sure those diseases would have left. If the deceased hadsuffered for nine days from constipation I should have expectedto find entirely different symptoms. There was no symptomof enteritis, but it might be mistaken for peritonitis without acareful examination.Cross-examined.-I discovered no trace of delivery having

been caused by instruments, or any other than natural means.She might have delivered herself. There were no certain indi-cations of the age of the child, and it might have been small,though fully matured. Decomposition enlarges the breasts.There may be a dark ring and follicles visible without the con-dition of pregnancy. [A great number of questions were thenput with a view to show that the appearances presented bythe remains of the deceased might have been caused by ulcers,hydatids, and other diseases.] Premature confinements arevery common, and may be induced by constipation of thebowels and the medicines given to remedy that. Constipationmay cause enteritis, which might produce peritonitis, and that,in turn, premature delivery and death.

Mr. JoHN N. TERRY.-I am a surgeon, practising at Brad-ford. Judging from the post-mortem examination, I was ofopinion that peritonitis was the cause of death, and I thoughtthere had been recent delivery, but I could not swear thatsuch had actually taken place. If there had been delivery,the peritonitis may have preceded the delivery, or the deliverythe peritonitis. There were no indications whatever of the z,

peritonitis having been caused by improper means. The I

symptoms enumerated coincide with delivery, but there are ’,cases on record where they are caused by tumours, moles, orhydatids, and therefore I am not able to give an opinion.Mr. BLiss declined to cross-examine this witness, and said

he might almost appeal to his learned friend himself whetherhe could expect anything but an acquittal on his own evi-dence.Mr. PRICE said he was bound to prove two things--that the

woman died from improper means, and that those means wereused by the prisoner. He felt that the medical evidence failedto establish the first step, and therefore he was not disposed topersevere with the case.The learned JUDGE, acceding to that course, directed the

jury that unless they held a decided opinion that enough hadbeen proved to make it worth while to persist in the inquiry,they should find a verdict of acquittal.The Jury, after a minute’s consultation, said that the medical

evidence had failed to satisfy them of the cause of death, andacquitted the prisoner.The leading facts in the address of the prosecuting counsel

were in the main proved; there was nothing, however,except the conversation of the prisoner with Mr. Field, to con-nect him in any way with any criminal proceeding in relationto the charge for which he was put upon his trial. On thecross-examination of the witnesses, indeed, it was elicited thatthe prisoner had on all occasions manifested the greatest kind-ness and attention to the deceased. The circumstances detailedWere undoubtedly gravely suspicious; but there was no directevidence to connect the prisoner with the fatal result. As

might have been expected, the evidence of the medical wit-nesses was that upon which the verdict was founded. Wecannot say that this evidence is open to serious animadversion,and we think that Mr. Terry showed a wise discretion in qua-lifying as he did the opinions which he expressed. With theevidence before him he justly remarked, " I am not able to

give an opinion." We publish the evidence of the medical wit-nesses in full, and it is difficult to conceive after that testimonyhow any other verdict than that given by the jury could havebeen arrived at.

PARISIAN MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE.

(FROM OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT.)

THE last four meetings of the Academy of Medicine havingbeen exclusively monopolized by a discussion between theveterinary surgeons, I have not thought any report therefromworthy of your columns, nor do I deem that the " aptitudes ofthe bovine race," as enlarged upon by M. Beaudement at theAcademy of Sciences, would much interest your readers, so

I leave these enlightened societies to their glandered hobbieson the one hand, and their baeufs gras on the other, and passon, led, no doubt, by association to a story about the kingof beasts."

I alluded, some months ago, to the invention and fabrication,by a Frenchman of the name of Mezery, of certain gelatineboxes or capsules, into which nauseous medicines, such as tur-pentine, creosote, and the like, could be dropped, and so takenby the patient without disgust. The Frankfort journals relatehow that a somewhat similar plan for the exhibition of un-savory drugs had been put into practice in the case of a lionwhich recently died at the menagerie of Schonbrun. This pooranimal possessed, in common with many of its betters, a daintypalate, and, though desperately sick, resisted every attempt atmedical treatment-no pill nor potion could be forced or coaxeddown its gullet. Some crafty German horseleech suggested atlength that a small live dog should be stuffed (the account doesnot say how) with as much drastic seasoning as it would hold,and that the lion might, as Tasso says of the child-

Succhi amari ingannato ei beveI E dall’ inganno suo vita riceve."

For the first time in his life, however, the " king of beasts"refused the tempting mouthful, and declined the quasi-gildedpill, playing with the puppy instead of devouring it. Thedog, it appears, in spite of the discomfort of serving as capsuleor envelope for three or four dozen boluses of extr. coloc. comp., 2and of the superadded delicacy of its position vis à vis the lion,passed through the ordeal unscathed:

" It was the lion died."

M. Flourens, at a recent meeting of the Academy of Sciences,most vigorously attacked those revivers of the exploded bubbleof spontaneous generation who, like M. Pouchet, had venturedto invest with a garb of scientific colour notions and theorieswhich had reposed in limbo since the middle ages. M. Pouchetprobably was not aware, whilst hatching his so-called sponta-neous broods of infusoria, that a Jew named Samuel Delborahad been beforehand with him, and had not only burnt his,finge2ls, but got himself condemned to the stake, and was burntalive at Lyons in 1568. Delbora carried his views on sponta-neous generation so far that he declared he could, like Prome-theus, construct a man at will, and the following was his pro-cess. He gathered certain herbs by the river-side at midnightand with the full moon, reciting meanwhile five 1’aters back-wards. These herbs he infused, and from the infusion thousandsof insects were obtained, which were duly dried, reduced topowder, and again mixed with water. The second solutionyielded worms, a repetition of the process flies, and so onthrough phases of snails, toads, serpents, lizards, rats, andwolves. At last the human form was attained, and after sevengenerations of purification and mellowing, the diabolical elementwas sufficiently softened down to be presented as a man. WasM. Pouchet tending to this result ? Burning, it is true, is nolonger in fashion; but still reputations may be singed by aneven less cause.A third victim has succumbed to the fury of the terrible epi-

demic of erysipelas now raging : Dr. Charles le Couppey diedon the 17th inst., after an illness of four days. The mother ofM. Regnier, whose death you registered in THE LANCET of the20th inst., has since been carried off by the same cruel malady,caught, it is supposed, at the bed-side of her son. In Francegenerally, as I find, the contagious nature of erysipelas is de-nied ; and I have frequently heard it contested, that the re-moval of friends from the vicinity of such cases was a mostunnecessary precaution. The common occurrence during the