195

"1. To receive from all medical officers in India reports,according to printed forms, meteorological observations madeat every station, of the prevalent diseases and of the mortalityfrom each, amongst the troops under their care.

2. To suggest to medical officers serving in India particularsubjects for investigation, as bearing upon the cause of disease,and to furnish them with blank forms to tabulate their obser-vations according to a uniform method.

3. To publish annually an official report, containing-(a) A meteorological account of every station in India.(b) The number of Europeans at each station, and the

changes in the location of regiments during the year.(c) A report of the births, deaths, and marriages which have

taken place amongst Europeans in India.(d) An account of the diseases and mortality amongst Euro-

peans at each station, contrasting these with those of previousyears at the same and other stations, and showing the diseasesto which Europeans are liable at different periods of life, atdifferent seasons of the year, on the line of march, or whennewly arrived in the country, or at a fresh station.

(e) An abstract of the communications received in reply tothe inquiries alluded to in paragraph 2.

(f) A notice of the epidemic diseases which have prevailedamongst the native population.

(g) Such suggestions as the communications made to himmay call forth.Such a report, carefully prepared, would prove invaluable.

Many important facts, to collect which, has been a work ofmuch labour, and which are at present turned to no accountand completely lost, would be made available for our futureguidance, and for the advancement of sanitary science through-out the world.

4. To give advice to the Council of India upon all mattersbearing upon the sanitary condition of the army in India."

If these other necessary measures were adopted, the savingof life and money would be enormous; it is difficult to say how

great. But here is one fact which is suggestive: in 1835, thebuildings at one station in Bengal were abandoned as untenableby ’reason of unhealthiness; these buildings are stated by thefinance authorities of Calcutta to have cost, since 1757,£17,000,000 sterling.

THE PROGRESS OF DIPHTHERIA.

A COMMITTEE, consisting of Dr. Babington, F.R.S., (Presi-dent of the Epidemiological Society,) Dr. M’William, C.B.,F.R.S., Dr. Milroy, Dr. Jas. Bird, Dr. Seaton, Dr. Camps, Dr.Murchison, and Messrs. Ernest Hart and J. N. Radcliffe, hasbeen appointed by the Epidemiological Society to collect infor-mation, and report upon the epidemic of diphtheria, which isprevalent at the present time in several districts of England.The Committee, in carrying out the duties assigned to them,solicit the co-operation not only of the different members ofthe Society throughout the kingdom, but also of those profes-sional gentlemen, not members of the Society, who may havehad an opportunity of observing the disease, or who may beable otherwise to aid in carrying out the objects of the inquiry.

In order to secure uniformity of character in any reportsupon the disease with which the Committee may be favoured,they have drawn up a valuable list of suggestions, which havebeen forwarded to us for publication, but which we are unableto publish this week from the press of other matter. ,

The Registrar-General, also, whose classification of diseasealways keeps pace with those changes of type which succeed-ing epochs bring with them, has accorded a distinct column inhis Returns to the records of diphtheria, since the terminationof the labours of THE LANCET Sanitary Commission on Diph-theria, which has shown that this disease is wholly specific,and not to be confounded with scarlatina anginosa, or commonquiusy. Previously, the scarlatina and diphtheria returns hadbeen mingled together. It is very important that henceforththis name should be rigorously confined to the disease whichit properly designates, as there is reason to believe that it hasbeen very loosely applied. Nineteen fatal cases were returnedlast week for London.

MEDICO-PARLIAMENTARY.

COMMONS.-Friday, Feb. 11th.-Mr. Baxter asked the LordAdvocate if he intended, during the present session, to intro-duce a Bill amending the Scotch Lunacy Act of 1857.The Lord Advocate requested that the question might be

repeated within a fortnight after the first Report of the LunacyCommissioners under that Act had been presented. It washis impression that the Act required amendment.

Mr. Henley, in answer to a question from Mr. Bentinck,said that the Government had not determined to institute anymeasure solely on the Report of the Railway Accidents Com-mittee, but might do so incidentally in some general measuretouching railways.The Select Committee on Irremovable Poor was nominated.

Monday, Feb. 14th.-Sir Erskine Perry asked whether itwas intended to extend to the medical officers of the Navy theadvantages accorded to those of the Army by the Royal War-rant of the lst October, 1858.

Sir John Pakington said the matter was under consideration.The Admiralty desired to give satisfaction to the officers of theNavy generally. He could give no precise answer.

Wednesday, Feb. 16th.-Mr. Tite moved for a select com-mittee to inquire into the laws affecting the care and treatmentof lunatics, especially those found so by inquisition. He indi-cated the necessity for a more complete consolidation of the law,and a more thorough supervision.

Mr. Walpole called attention to the great increase in thenumber of lunatics in borough asylums-during the last fiveyears, from 12,982 to 17,572; whereas the number in privateasylums had barely increased at all. He desired to introducetwo Bills, - one relating to improvements in county and

, borough asylums, the other to improvements in private; asylums. He acceded to the inquiry, and wished to refer the

two Bills to the committee.Mr. Tite’s motion was agreed to, therefore, in an amended

form, defining more precisely the inquiries of the committee.

THE QUACKERY VILLANY.

WESTMINSTER COUNTY COURT.FEBRUARY 9TH.

(Before Mr. BAYLEY.)SCATTERGOOD f. JOHN GIBSON BENNETT alias DR. COULSTON.

THE plaintiff, a young lady, sought to recover £5 5s. fromthe defendant, an alleged notorious medical quack, trading undervarious aliases, after having paid that sum under very extra-ordinary circumstances.Mr. Bowen May appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Haines

for the defendant.The case was of an exceedingly important character under

the new Medical Registration Act, inasmuch as the proceed-ings were the first promoted by The London Medical Regis-tration Association, which Association, organized for the pur-pose of enforcing the requirements of the Act, by bringingabout a proper system of registration and prosecuting quackery,instructed Mr. May in behalf of the plaintiff.

Dr. LADD, Hon. Secretary of the Association, attended towatch the proceedings; and the court was crowded during thehearing of the case, which occupied several hours.

Mr. MAY, in opening the case for the plaintiff, observed thatthe public and the medical profession were greatly indebtedto the Registration Association for the manner in which it hadbeen instrumental in bringing the matter forward, not onlywith a view of seeing justice done to the plaintiff, who hadbeen so cruelly duped, but also in the hope, by such an expose,of placing the public on their guard against the quacks andnostrum-vendors of the metropolis; and he trusted the Asso-ciation would eventuallv be the means of entirelv suppressing

196

such vile and fraudulent practices. He would by evidenceshow that the defendant had for a long period carried on aflagrant system of imposition and fraud, under various assumednames, and at various addresses. His right name was JohnGibson Bennett, but he had assumed the names of Dr. Coulston,Dr. Watters, Dr. Woodward, Dr. Luders, Dr. Silvester, Pro-fessor Vanbrugen, &c. Mr. May then commented upon theprincipal points he proposed to produce in evidence, and heproceeded in the first place to callThe plaintiff, Miss MARY SCATTERGOOD, who, on being sworn,

deposed that two years ago, in consequence of seeing an adver-tisement in the newspapers, that deafness would be cured inten minutes by Dr. Coulston, of Leicester-place, Leicester-square, as she suffered from deafness, she went to the addressstated. She saw the defendant, who passed as Dr. Coulston,and she believed at the time that he was a medical man. Thedefendant asked her several questions, and after looking at herears, said he would cure her for ten guineas. She remarkedthat his advertisement stated that he could effect a perfect cure,and he replied that he would cure her in ten minutes if shepaid him ten guineas. (Laughter.) She said she could not affordten guineas, and defendant then said he would cure her forfive, which sum would include an apparatus. She told him shewas not then prepared with the money, and he asked her tocall again, adding that he would cure her so that she wouldnever be deaf again. The next day she went again to the de-fendant’s, with the five guineas. He said, " Have you comeprepared to be cured ?" She said, "Yes," and he then said," Have you brought the five guineas ?" She replied that shehad, remarking, as she gave him the money, " You say youwill cure me in ten minutes." She then sat down, thinkingshe was going to be cured at once, but the defendant said," An operation would be dangerous now, as you are going outinto a draught; I will give you a small bottle, which will bemuch safer." He then gave her a little bottle, the contents ofwhich he directed her to rub on her ears at night, and he saidshe would be perfectly cured in the morning ; but she was alsoto use it the following night. She accordingly applied themixture that night, but the next morning, instead of a cure, shefound her ears and head very sore, and, in fact, she could notsleep throughout the night for pain. She applied the mixture,as the defendant had directed, a second time ; but, instead ofbeing improved, she became worse, and had to bathe her headin hot water.

Mr. MAY.-After this, did you go to Dr. Coulston or Mr.John Gibson Bennett again ?

Witness.-Yes. When he asked for five guineas, I was tobe supplied with an apparatus. (A laugh.) I went again to6, Leicester-place, and saw a man who had sandy whiskers andmoustaches, and who, I had no doubt now, was the defen-dant’s brother, although he then passed as Dr. Coulston’s assis-tant. I told this person that I wanted to see Dr. Coul-ston, when he replied that Dr. Coulston was not within, andI could not see him. I complained that my ears were muchworse, and asked when Dr. Coulston could be seen. The

reply was that Dr. Coulston would not be in for a few days.I afterwards called several times, but could not see Dr.Coulston. (Laughter.) The young man whom I supposed tobe his brother, had whiskers and moustaches the first time Icalled, but, on my next visit, he was without them. (Muchlaughter.)

Mr. MAY.-What, were the moustaches gone as well as thewhiskers ?

Witness.-Yes; he looked very much like Dr. Coulston, andI stood looking at him for a minute, thinking it was he,but Dr. Coulston had dimples, and was stouter in the face.

Mr. MAY.-Well, did you see Dr. Coulston again ?Witness.-No, not until I saw him at 32, Spring-gardens.

I called several times at Leicester-place, without being ableto see him; and, at last, I was told he had left the country-that he had gone to Madeira. (Laughter.)

Mr. MAY.-Let us hear how you came to see the defendantafterwards.Witness.-I happened to go with two friends, Miss Tho-

mas and another, to 32, Spring-gardens, where Miss Thomaswas going to consult a Dr. Watters. On the door being opened,I saw Dr. Coulston sitting in the parlour, and he appearedto be passing for Dr. Watters.Mr. MAY.-You knew your friend with the five guineas

again ? (A laugh.) .

Witness. - Yes. We were asked up-stairs, and imme-diately afterwards, a young man entered the room, whom Irecognised as Dr. Coulston’s assistant in Leicester-place. Heseemed to come up for Dr. Watters, but the moment he saw

me, he seemed to know me, and went back. We were thentold Dr. Watters had gone out, and could not be seen.

After this, Miss Thomas brought an action against Dr.Watters in this court, and gained it. I saw Dr. Watters, ashe was called, on that occasion in court, and recognised himas Dr. Coulston and the defendant in the present action. Thiswas about two months ago. I suffered from deafness for a longperiod after applying the defendant’s nostrums.

Mr. HAINES cross-examined the witness, but her evidencewas not shaken in the least. She again identified the defendantas Dr. Coulston, observing, as she pointed to him, " That isthe man who passed himself as Dr. Coulston." She deniedbringing the action because a Mr. Lewis or Mr. Yearsley hadsuggested it, and she added, that she thought it was time totake proceedings after calling and seeing Dr. Coulston at

Spring-gardens.EDWARD SANGER, servant to Mr. Hoghton, aurist, of 23, Suf.

folk-street, was next examined. He said that he knew thedefendant, John Gibson Bennett. He was formerly assistant toMr. Hoghton. Mr. Hoghton discharged him because he dis-covered that he was practising, under the assumed name ofDr. Luders, at 32, Craven-street, Strand. He also went bythe name of Dr. John Clark. The witness further stated,that the names, Woodward and Silvester, were used whilethe defendant practised in Craven-street, and the letter pro-duced was in his handwriting. Witness further stated thatdefendant had purloined 1050 pamphlets from Hoghton.

Mr. MAY read the letter which had been forwarded to anadvertising agent. It was as follows: "Dr. Singleton does notreside at 32, Craven-street, Strand; he has been dead nowthree weeks, and Dr. Luders has left London, and the adver.tisements are not required."Examination resumed.-The defendant advertised pills to

cure nervousness, and letters were left for him at the post-officein the name of Wesley. He (witness) received letters for thedefendant under that name, the letters being in reference tothe advertisements. The letters when opened contained fouror five shillings’ worth of postage-stamps, and in reply pillswere sent, the pills being made up of new bread and plumsmoulded together, with a little flour powdered over them.(Laughter.) A caution was sent with each box that not morethan one pill should be taken in the morning. (Much laughter.)Complaints were often returned, but these were committed tothe flames. This was going on while the defendant and hisbrother, Henry Bennett, were assistants to !Nir. Hoghton, butthat gentleman did not know anything of it until after he wasdischarged.

Mr. MAY.-Do you know such a person as Vanbrugen ?Witness.-Yes; I happened to be in the Weekly Times office

about ten months ago, when the defendant’s brother, HenryBennett, entered, to insert an advertisement, in which, for sixpostage-stamps, it was stated that a preparation (the Bloomof Health) would be returned which would make ladies’ skinsappear like that of a child of ten years of age. (Laughter.)The brother, Henry Bennett, had resided at Leicester-place,under the assumed name of Nichols, but the landlord got rid ofhim as soon as he discovered who he was.

Mr. MAY.-Do you know of John Gibson Bennett sailingunder any other name than those you have mentioned ?Witness.-I knevr him as Dr. John Clark, of 5, Beaufort-

street, Strand. The letters produced are in the defendant’shandwriting, except one in his brother’s.

Cross-examined by Mr. HAINES. - Mr. Hoghton was an

aurist, residing at 23, Suffolk-street, and he (witness) was stillin Mr. Hoghton’s service. Mr. Hoghton was not in court, forhe did not know of the present proceedings. He was not awareof any jealousies existing, nor did he know about Mr. Hoghtonbeing under obligations to the defendant in money matters.He (witness) appeared voluntarily to give his evidence, and hehad not been influenced to do so.The witness further deposed that while both the defendant

and his brother were in Mr. Hoghton’s employ, they carriedon the pill trade together; and after the defendant had beendischarged, he had seen the brother, Henry Bennett, makingup the pills. The brother remained in Mr. Hoghton’s servicefor some time after the defendant left.DENNIS O’BRYAN, an advertising agent, deposed to having

had law proceedings against the defendant, under the names ofDr. Singleton and Dr. Luders. The defendant had paid him hisdemand, X2 2 11s. 3d., and 2s. 6d. costs. At the time the debtwas contracted, the defendant was living in Craven-street,Strand, but he went away, and witness heard no more of himuntil twelve months afterwards, when he traced him to Spring-gardens.

197

Mr. WILLIAM WALLEN said that his daughter consulted thedefendant, whom he now recognised in court, for deafness, atSpring-gardens. The defendant then passed as Dr. Watters.His daughter had overpaid the defendant a guinea, his fee, asstated in his letter, being a guinea, while she had paid himtwo, and then he went in company with his daughter to getback the guinea that had been overpaid. They saw the de-fendant, who got very violent, and, calling him (witness)

" a

grey-headed old rascal," threatened, if he did not go out, thathe would take him by the hair and throw him down stairs.The defendant also said that the money had gone into the in-firmary (a laugh); that he could not have his time taken up, ashe had fifty persons to see that day, and that he was a greaterman than Sir B. Brodie. (Laughter.) Witness then left withoutgetting back his guinea. His daughter had gone to the de-fendant as Dr. Watters in consequence of an advertisement thatappeared, stating that he could cure deafness, epilepsy, andconsumption, but his treatment did more harm than good.ELIZA RossITER stated that she had been swindled by Dr.

Watters out of £4 3s. She went to the defendant as Dr.Watters, then living at 32, Spring-gardens, in consequence ofseeing an advertisement, which stated he would cure deafnessin ten minutes; but instead of being cured, she became worse.(Laughter.) She told the "doctor" this, and asked for hermoney back, but he wanted .61 12s. more. She had now takenout a summons against him in that court.Mr. MAY said that he could call numerous other patients

who had been victimized. He was surrounded by them, buthe did not think it necessary, after the evidence that had been

given, to call any more witnesses.Mr. HAINES then proceeded with the defence. He said that

a considerable amount of ill-feeling had been exhibited againsthis client in the case; but he felt sure that his Honour wouldnot be prejudiced thereby when he came to hear from the de-fendant himself that he was not the person who had beenpointed out by the witnesses, that he knew nothing of thetransactions narrated, and that, in fact, he had been made thEvictim of a conspiracy set on foot by one or two parties fOJcertain Duroosea of their own.JOHN GIBSON BENNETT, who wore a moustache, and appeared

about forty years of age, was then sworn.-He said that he Inever saw the plaintiff in his life before that day, and he neverreceived any money from her-not so much as a penny. Henever saw her until that moment in Court; he never had apart-ments at 6, Leicester-place; and he never resided there. Henever practised as Dr. Coulston, and he never assumed thename of Dr. Luders. His brother was a tenant of a portion ofthe house 6, Leicester-square, in 1857, and he believed Mr.Coulston, a surgeon, resided there at that time. His brotherwas connected with Mr. Coulston in carrying on his practice.He (defendant) had never any connexion with Mr. Coulston,and he never paid over any money to him. He had heard

Miss Scattergood speak of calling at 32, Spring-gardens; buthe had never seen her before that day in Court. As to theproceedings mentioned by Mr. O’Bryan, they were against afriend and relative of his (defendant’s), named Dr. Wood-ward, who had been practising under the name of Singleton.This friend gave him the money to hand over to Mr. U’Bryan.He was certainly summoned for the amount claimed by Mr.O’Brvan, but the debt was Dr- Woodward’s.

By Mr. MAY.-He was a gentleman; had no avocation;never had any. (Laughter.) He hired rooms at 2, Norfolk-terrace, Twickenham. He obtained his livelihood as a gentle-man, and not as a billiard-sharper. He had been summoned to ’,the Board of Green Cloth; he attended to appeal against a,claim made for income-tax; he went to the Board dressed inthe same clothes he had on then, and not dressed as a beggar.(Great hughter.) He never went by any other name thanJohn Gibson Bennett.Mr. MAY.-Have you been known by any other name?Witness.-I cannot say what other names I may have been

known in, but I have never used any other name than thatof John Gibson Bennett. I have heard the name Ludersbefore, but it had no reference to me.Cross-examined.-The person named Woodward, who had

been mentioned, was a Dr. Woodward who was in the Indianservice (a laugh), and who, during three months’ leave of ab-sence in England, practised at 32, Craven-street, Strand, inthe names of Luders and Singleton. He (witness) did notknow whose writing it was in the letter produced (one of theletters sworn to by the witness, Sanger, as being in the de.fendant’s handwriting). There was such a person in existenceas Dr. Woodward : The advertisement produced-" Singingin the ears, deafness, &c., cured on the receipt of six postage-

stamps"-was not his (witness’s). One advertisement wasfrom a man who had robbed him of £1000. (Laughter.) Theother was from a tenant of his, named Watters. He did notknow where his tenant was at the present time. (A laugh.)He never saw the witness (Mr. Wallen) before; nor the lastwitness, Eliza Rossiter. He had never seen them before in hislife.

Mr. MAY. -Is there such a person as Dr. Watters ?Witness.-How can I tell who Dr. Watters is ?Mr. MAY.-But he was a tenant? (A laugh.)Witness.—Yes; but how can I say where my tenant is

(Much laughter.)Mr. MAY.-Did you ever see him?Witness.—Yes, at 32, Spring-gardens. I have seen him

there two and three times a week.The defendant was further cross-examined by Mr. May.

He said that it was a friend of Dr. Woodward who providedthe money to pay Mr. O’Bryan. He refused to give the friend’sname, as he was in the Horse Guards, and he would be dis-charged if his name were divulged. He did not know anysuch parties as Manfred, Brandson, or Vanbrugen; but he wasacquainted with a person named Skinner. He persisted instating that he never trafficked in any other name than hisown-John Gibson Bennett. He did not carry on any practice,directly or indirectly. He did not undertake to cure deafness,and so forth; nor did he trade in toilet articles. He neverlived at 32, Suffolk-street, Pall-mall, as Mr. Hoghton’s assis-tant ; but he advanced money to Mr. Hoghton to carry on thebusiness. Mr. Hoghton had scheduled him for X500 that heowed hi;n, and he had lent Mr. Hoghton X500 at a time onseveral occasions. He could not say how many thousands hehad lent him (much laughter), but he knew that he scheduledhim for £500. He did not know who lived at 17, Lough-borough-street, Kennington-lane.

By Mr. HAINES.- When he said that he gained his livelihoodas a gentleman, he meant to say that he did nothing derogatory-to a gentleman. He received money from his friends, who werewealthy, and he was expecting a large sum. Dr. Woodward

was an M.D., an M.R.C.S., and an L. S. A. During his stay in

England he practised in the names of Singleton and Dr. Luders.

He saw Dr. Watters two or three weeks ago. Mr. Skinner, asurgeon and aurist, now occupied the premises in Spring-gardens.The Court was here adjourned for a quarter of an hour, andupon being re-opened,WiLLiAM BENNETT, the defendant’s brother, was called and

examined, the witness giving his evidence in a very cool andflippant manner. In 1857 lie was tenant of the house at 6,Leicester-place. Mr. Coulston practised there as a surgeon,and be advertised there as an aurist. He (witness) was con-

nected with Mr. Coulston in the business, through advancinghim money on various occasions. He remembered the plaintiffcalling to see Mr. Coulston about her deafness, and he (witness)acted on the occasion as Mr. Coulston’s assistant. He informed

. Mr. Coulston of the plaintiff’s complaint, and Mr. Coulstondirected him to give certain remedies. Mr. Coulston alwaysleft word with him what remedies should be given if patientsapplied in his absence. (Laughter.) The plaintiff was a gratispatient; she never paid one halfpenny. The defendant, JohnGibson Bennett, was not connected in the least-no not in theleast-with 6, Leicester-place. He (witness) saw the plaintifftwo or three times, and he could swear that she never paidanything. Mr. Coulston’s orders were to get as much moneyas he could out of patients. It was six or eight months sincehe had anything to do with Mr. Coulston. He remembered theyoung lady (the plaintiff) calling at 32, Spring-gardens; he mether on the stairs. He saw another assistant of Dr. Watters onthat occasion. She could not have seen the defendant there,as he was not near the house then ; he was ten or twelve milesaway at the time. (Laughter.) The persons she saw at Spring-gardens were Mr. Edwards and another assistant of Dr.Watters, named Allen.

Mr. MAY.-What are you?Witness.-A gentleman. (A laugh.)Mr. MAY.-Are you one of the gentlemen known as the

Bennett gang"? (Laughter.)Witness.—If you like, you may call me so (with great indif-

ference) ; I will leave the question to be decided by yourselfand the public. (Much laughter.)

Mr. MAY.-Then I will assume that such is the case.Witness. -Just so; leave it so. (Laughter.)Cross-examined.-He had lived as medical assistant to Dr.

CoulstoD, Dr. Manfred, and Dr. Watters. He had heard of £the name of Dr. Luders. Dr. Woodward was an M.D. As

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