198

to his brother, the defendant--who was a gentleman like him-self,-he lived on X4000 or X5000 a year. He kept horses,sometimes five or six. (Laughter.) He (witness) did not insertadvertisements and carry on a trade in toilet articles-he neverdid. He had only been assistant, as he had stated, to Drs. Coul-ston, Manfred, and Watters. He was never in business on hisown account; he found them the means, and he had lent themas much as £500, ;S600, and X800 at a time. (Laughter.) Hewas paid in return a commission on the proceeds of the business.He was a man of property. His property was in money, notin land, which he considered better. (A laugh.)Mr. MAY.-Do you know where Dr. Watters and Mr. Coul-

ston are ?Witness.-’ cannot say where Dr. Watters is, but I expected

Mr. Coulston would have been in court. (Laughter.) Really,I expected him here (looking about).The witness further stated, in cross-examination, that he

had lived in Wick-lane, Kingston. He had heard of Lough-borough-street, Kennington; his brother had lived there. Hedid not know anything about the advertisement " Bloom ofHealth." He still adhered to the statement that Miss Scatter-good never paid one halfpenny, and that she was a gratis pa-tient. Mr. Coulston received all the money that was taken.

Mr. MAY.-And you were to get as much out of a patientas you could ?

Witness.-Yes ; as much as could be got.Mr. MAY.-And vou followed this out closely?Witness (in a confidential manner). -That, of course, was

between ourselves. (Laughter.)By Mr. HAINES.—His brother had means of his own which

enabled him to keep horses; and he always paid twenty shil-tings in the pound. (A laugh.)The name of Samuel Coulston, otherwise Dr. Coulston, was

called out several times in Court, and created much laughter,though no response followed.A young man named William Allen was next called, on the

part of the defendant, to show that he had no connexion withthe firms of "Dr. Coulston" or "Dr. Watters;" but the evi-dence was unimportant and of an unsatisfactory character,through the absence in propria persona of the" Doctors" Coul-ston and Watters.Mr. MAY, addressing his Honour, observed that he assumed

ample and conclusive evidence had been given for the defendantto be indicted or committed for perjury ?His HONOUR replied that he intended to adopt that course.

There could be no doubt that a fraud had been committed. The,evidence of the plaintiff, Miss Scattergood, was very conclu-sive on the point of identification, as was the evidence of theother witnesses, Sanger, Wallen, and Rossiter; and then theletters produced and sworn to pointed to the defendant in thenames of Dr. Luders and Dr. Singleton. There could be nodoubt, under all these circumstances, of a conspiracy and fraudhaving been committed; and while giving the plaintiff a ver-dict for the amount claimed, he would commit the defendantfor forty days.

Mr. MAY asked if his Honour could commit both the defen-dant and his brother on the charge of fraud ?

His HONOUR replied that he could only deal with the de-fendant.The defendant was then immediately arrested by the officers

- of the Court, and the proceedings terminated.

SCATTERGOOD VERSUS BENNETT.

J. BOWEN MAY.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.

SIR,-I see by your journal of last week that you purposegiving a report of this trial, so important to the public as wellas the medical profession. I have received a letter from Mr.Coulston, which I enclose, as it tends to confirm the evidencegiven on the trial, and to show how little reliance can beplaced on the oaths of the interested. I have had many appli-

. cations from other victims of the Bennetts, and expect your.columns will again be called on to help to purify the professionby recording proceedings against them.

Yours very obediently,Bolton House, Russell-square, Feb. 1859. J. BOWEN MAY.

(COPY.)

HENRY S. COULSTON.

21, Norland-square, Notting-hill.SiR,-In the discharge of your duty to your client in so suc-

cessfully prosecuting your suit against the "Bennett gang," (asthey are termed,) you have done me serious injury by assumingthat " Mr. Coulston was a myth," and connected with theseBennetts. I learn that you are very strict in seeing that rin:ht

is done to all. May I therefore beg, in your future proceedingsagainst these people (and when you have found the truth ofwhat I will presently state), that my name may not be mixedup with their disgraceful proceedings. I once had the misfor.tune to employ Wm. Bennett as my assistant for a few months,but I got rid of him nearly two years since. It is, therefore,false that he is in my service now, or that he resides at 22,Norland-square, and it is equally false that at any time heever lent me X500 and £800, or that I allowed him a portion ofmy profits, as he also appears to have sworn. I do not thinkhe ever had as many shillings to advance had I wished it.

Your obedient servant,HENRY S. COULSTON.

To J. Bowen May, Esq., Bolton House, Russell-square.

COMMISSION OF OYER AND TERMINER,DUBLIN.

OBTAINING A DIPLOMA UNDER FALSE PRETENCES.

AT the above Commission, John Edward Protheroe and Dr.Charles Evans Reeves were indicted for an attempt to obtain,under false pretences, a diploma from the King and Queen’sCollege of Physicians in Ireland.

’I he SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Mr. George, Q. C.) stated that theCrown had agreed that the case should be settled as the coun-sel for the prisoners had stated. Though a diploma or degreehad been obtained under false pretences, yet it should be reomembered that this could be of no possible use to the prisoners,and that it was at present in the hands of the police, by whomit would be restored to the College. Under these circumstances,and although the Crown were ready to prove the case, theythought that, considering the length of time during which Mr.Protheroe and Dr. Reeves had been in custody, and the injurydone to their prospects and character by the charge, they hadbeen sufficiently punished, and it was accordingly agreed notto press for severe punishment, but to permit the prisoners,upon pleading guilty, to be discharged, having entered intorecognizances to appear for judgment when called on. He

thought that the counsel for the defence had shown a wise dis-cretion in advising this plea of "guilty." He hoped such anoffence would not again be committed. A new Act had latelycome into operation in which the status of the King andQueen’s College of Physicians was recognised, and in whichstringent punishments were provided to be inflicted on anyparty who should cause false registration or obtain a diplomaunder false pretences. On these grounds, and as the Collegeauthorities seemed to believe that the character of the Collegewould be sufficiently respected, and justice vindicated, by thecourse it was proposed to adopt in this case, he agreed thatthe prisoners should be discharged from custody.Baron RICHARDS said that as the Crown had agreed to the

arrangement of the case, he would not question the proprietyof the course which had been adopted, and he must say thathe believed the prisoners had been very well advised. Theoffence which had been committed he considered to be one ofa very serious nature.Judge BALL hoped that it would be remembered that the

responsibility of arranging the case rested with the Crown,and that the Court was not to be considered as any party tothe arrangement.

POOR-LAW MEDICAL REFORM.

AT a meeting of the medical officers of the BromsgroveUnion, held Jan. 28th, the following resolutions, in referenceto the suggested Medical Relief Scheme, were unanimouslyadopted :-

1. That it would be unjust to the present medical officers todetermine, without their individual consent, the contracts atpresent existing.

2. That it is most undesirable to appoint two medical officersfor the same district or parish, as it would lead to rivalry of anunpleasant character, and tend to the increase of pauperism.

3. That grave objections exist to the giving orders for medi-cal relief by each guardian. By virtue of his office as a memberof the Board, each guardian has judicial duties to perform;amongst others, that of allowing or disallowing the medical orother relief given by the relieving officer. It would followthat the medical orders given by the guardian would be broughtin comparison with those of the officer; and, as a consequence,the authority and control of the Board over such officer would bad be