BMJ

Homœopathy at Totness: InquestSource: Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal (1844-1852), Vol. 15, No. 24 (Nov. 26, 1851), pp.664-665Published by: BMJStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25493194 .

Accessed: 18/06/2014 01:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

BMJ is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Provincial Medical and SurgicalJournal (1844-1852).

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:33:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

664 HOMCEOPATHY AT TOTNESS.

it?ligaments, muscles and all?and hence the immense

power required to reduce it by these means; and hence,

too, the failures, the fractures of the neck, and the

cripples that have been made for life, by this barbarous

and unscientific mode of reduction.?New York Journ.

of Medicine, September, 1851.

HOMCEOPATHY AT TOTNESS : INQUEST.

A copy of the Evidence given at an Inquest held at the

Exeter Inn, in Bridgetown, within the Borough of

Totness, on the 12th day of November inst., and

adjourned until the 14th, befora W. Cockey, Esq.,

Deputy Coroner for this Division of Devon, to

inquire into the cause of death of Alexander Charles

Screach, aged four years and a half.

Rev. James Shore : (Not sworn.) Says he calls for

an inquiry in consequence of his being accused of the

murder of the child, or that he had killed it by his

treatment, which he will shew by his witnesses, and

that he will prove himself both justified and qualified to

treat any sick person, and to prescribe medicines, having studied medicine for thirty years. That the medicines

had cost him formerly fifty pounds, but now he per mitted certain ladies to receive money as a remunera

tion ; that those persons prepared the medicines in the

breakfast room in his house, from his prescriptions, and

delivered the medicines to his patients at his house.

Mr. William Bowden : (Sworn.) I am a surgeon

residing at Totness ; I examined the body of Alexander

Charles Screach on the 12th day of November inst.; there were no marks of violence externally, no emacia

tion of the body; skin tinged yellow generally over the

body, giving an idea that the child had jaundice. I

then opened the head. On removing the cap of the

skull, I found the membranes of the brain congested, the exterior membrane or dura mater was tinged slightly

yellow; on removing the brain I found it quite healthy. I then opened the chest, the lungs were perfectly

healthy, there were no adhesions or appearance of any former disease; the heart was also healthy ; the abdomi

nal organs were generally healthy; the stomach con

tained no food, and only a small quantity of mucus; the vessels of the small curvature were slightly con

gested, as well as those of the duodenum; the liver

was healthy; the gall bladder was empty, with the

exception of a little mucus; the kidneys were healthy; bladder full of rather high-coloured urine. I believe the

child to have died from congestion of the vessels of

the membranes of the brain.

Mr. W. Kellock: (Sworn.) I am a surgeon residing at Totness, I attended the examination of the body of

Alexander Charles Screach with Mr. Bowden, and agree with him as to the cause of the child's death.

Mr. Shore: (Asked.) If jaundice might not produce

congestion of the vessels of the brain ?

Mr. Kellock: Certainly. Mr. Shore: Might not violent sickness produce the

same effect ?

Mr. Kellock: Yes, but not permanently; the con

gestion might be the cause of sickness.

Mr. Shore: You said some of the vessels of the

stomach and duodenum were congested; might not

that effect be produced by ginger administered

internally ?

Mr. Kellock : That would depend upon the quantity

given; I cannot answer that question unless you state

the quantity, which I should think must be large to

produce such an effect.

William Screach: (Sworn.) I am a tailor residing in

Bridgetown, I am the father of the child, it had been

ill since last Monday fortnight, I considered it looked

yellow, and had the jaundice. Mis. Turpin, a neighbour, told me that Mrs. Monteith had a child cured of jaun dice by Mr. Shore, or from a prescription of his. My wife took the child to Mr. Shore's house, he prescribed for it, and I sent my son for the medicine to Mr.

Shore's house twice; the first time there were twelve or

fourteen powders sent, I cannot say which, and the

second time twelve or fourteen powders, about twenty six altogether; the powders were directed to be given

every four or six hours, he did not know which; they were given to the child; the medicine produced no

apparent effect; there was no alteration in the child up to Wednesday in the last week, it was running about

and occasionally lying about very heavy. On Thursday

my wife heard that Mr. Thompson had ordered some

medicine for a child of Mr. Butland, chemist, of

Totness, for the same disorder, and had soon cured it.

She went to Mr. Butland and asked for the same

medicine, and received four powders. [The prescription in Butland's hand writing was put in, it was powdered

rhubarb, 5 grains, carbonate of magnesia, 5 grains, and

ginger, 1 grain.] One powder was given on Thursday

evening, one on Friday morning, and one on Friday

night, 9 o'clock; in the course of half an hour the child

vomited very much, and continued in that state for a

long time, it was restless for many hours; it then

became quiet; on Saturday night it appeared to be much

worse, when I sent for Mr. Derry. He came directly and sent it four powders, but he did not say the child

was so dangerously ill. I saw it take one of Mr. Derry's

powders; it took no effect; the child was quiet until

5 o'clock on Sunday morning, it then became con

vulsed, and remained so until 7 o'clock in the morning, and died at 9 o'clock, about five minutes before Mr.

Derry came to my house.

Elizabeth Seycombe: (Sworn.) Called by Mr. Shore

and examined by him. Did not say Mr. Gillard had

said that Mr. Shore had killed the child. I went to his

l surgery at Mr. Thompson's for medicine. Mr. Gillard

was there and the dispenser; Mr. Gillard said, " so they

say Mr. Shore has killed the child (I thought he meant

Screach's child); what does he know about medicine."

No name was mentioned.

Gervas Holmes: (Sworn.) Went with Mr. Shore to

Elizabeth Seycombe, fearing she might prevaricate, to

hear what she said about this case; she stated having had a conversation with Mr. Gillard, and that Mr.

[ Gillard had made use of these words :?" Mr. Shore has

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:33:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TREATMENT OF THE INSANE. 665

killed the child; what does he know about medicine/'

She then varied by saying that Mr. Gillard said:?" They

say Mr. Shore has killed the child ; what does he know

about medicine/7

The Coroner then remarked that they must be all

satisfied as to the death of the child, and if other parties were aggrieved at Mr. Shore's practising medicine they must apply to another court; and Mr. Shore, if he

considered himself charged with the death of the child, must apply elsewhere.

The Jury then retired for a short time, and returned

their verdict that the child had died from congestion of

the membranes of the brain, and that there was not the

slightest blame to Mr. Shore.

TREATMENT OF THE INSANE.

To the Editor of the Provincial Medical and Surgical Journal.

Sir,?I have had forwarded to me two extracts from

your journal, of letters from a gentleman who signs himself E.B., apparently the proprietor of a private lunatic asylum, the first of which is dated the 4th of

September, and the other two appear to have been

published about the 20th of September, on which I

shall be obliged if you will permit me to make the

following observations:?

In his last letter, E. B. states that he has read a

paper ''calling itself the alleged Lunatic's Friend

Society/' (sic,) and adds, " a more impertinent paper

calling itself 'areport,' I never read." He then pro ceeds to allude to my name, I having signed the report in my capacity as Honorary Secretary of the Society, and according to the strict rules of justice adhered to

by persons of his calling, alleges my wild enthusiasm

and want of common sense as a ground for not wonder- !

ing at that of the report,?that is, writes me down a

madman or a fool, probably upon hearsay evidence.

He then proceeds to give his description of that report, of which I will take the liberty of furnishing you with a

copy, that you may judge for yourself of its merits, and I am sorry to say, falsifies the weight of it, when

he declares that it only shows that " irregularities have

been proved," &c. &c, but the characters of the pro

prietors remained unimpeached." In two cases, on the

contrary, the characters of the proprietors are severely

impeached, and I have no.hesitation in saying that if

justice had been done, they ought to have been very

heavily find or deprived of their licenses altogether. E. B. further supposes that he makes a serious attack

upon the report of the Committee of the Alleged Lunatic's Friend Society, by stating that it can find

nothing to detail but what has been already before the

public and adjudicated. Forgetting that in reporting cases which had been adjudicated upon, we were tread

ing on sure ground, and calling the attention of the

members of the Society and of the public to facts that

could not be denied, and giving a detail of the result of

our labours, whereas he appears to have looked, perhaps,

from the habitual practice of his mind, for some

ex-parte information, which we are very cautious about

relying upon, and for a report of what we were

doing and had left undone, instead of that which we had

accomplished, which indeed would have been a very

strange kind of report, and somewhat like certifying

myself as a proper inmate for a lunatic asylum.

Leaving, however, E.B.'s strictures upon the report, which I have no doubt from his position, he feels a

little sore about, I desire to remind him, that the objects of the Alleged Lunatic's Friend Society are two-fold,?

1st, to procure an amendment of the Law of Lunacy

affecting private patients; 2nd, to prevent the confine

ment and detention of persons upon allegations of in

sanity which are originally false, or which may have

I ceased to be true. Now, with regard to the first point,

E.B., though regarding the law fronTa different point of

view from ourselves, is a strong witness in our favour;

for he says the act is difficult of comprehension, and in

regard to certificates from the county, impossible to

be immedidtely obeyed. With regard to comprehen

sion, I would observe that none are so dull as those

who do not wish to understand, and that the dulness

that does not comprehend the law, whether real or

artificial, does not go far to qualify the pleader of it for

the care of an establishment of insane people. But it

is evident that a law that cannot possibly be obeyed

requires reform, and in this E.B. therefore coincides in

opinion with the Society, only he desires it to be

amended for his interests, to facilitate the admission of

patients into asylums, we for the interests of mankind?

that the safeguard against unjust confinement provided

by the Legislature should be real and not impracticable.

We agree with E. B. also in another point, although

again looking at the law in different views, when he

complains of the power of the Commissioners being

inquisitorial, their court a star chamber, and the Act

giving no appeal. E. B. is very sensitive for his own

rights and for the interests of those of his class. We

do not blame him, but he blames us apparently for

complaining of the same nature of proceeding in regard

to the unfortunate persons confined in asylums, whose

complaints, when they have the opportunity of making

them, and the good fortune to secure attention, are

investigated behind their backs, without the presence

of any friend or attorney to represent them, and in a

court bound by oath to secrecy, from which they have

no appeal. Surely their position is still more touching

than that of the lunatic doctor, in health and in the

possession of wealth, and of liberty, and able at any

j rate to appeal to public opinion. This is one part of

the law which we desire to be reformed, as well as

E. B., and we have no objection to have his reasonable

complaints attended to which he and his comrades have

full power and liberty to sue for, but for God's sake do

not let the complaints which we make for others, and

which are, of injustice, of a still more cruel description,

be treated as the result of want of common sense, or

of wild enthusiasm.

E. B. has asked a question in his first letter, and I

will ask another. Is there such a vice as injustice ?

Should not the Legislature pass a law declaring that

there is no such vice, and that confinement or restriction

of liberty, under the presumption of being guilty of any

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.88 on Wed, 18 Jun 2014 01:33:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions