431

sulphuric acids, from which he was in the act of pouring,deceased inhaled, for a few minutes, the fumes evolved by thespilt acid. He also received some severe cuts about the hands,and became very faint and sick. From evidence given at theinquest, it appeared, that when first seen by his medicalattendant, nearly three 7tozi-,,-s after the accident, "he sat up andappeared in moderately good health," and remarked that hehad sent for him more particularly about his hands. " Hecoughed now and then rather violently, but said he had been asbad before." At the next visit, three hours afterwards, mattershad assumed a more serious aspect. "He breathed withdifficulty, and coughed a good deal. The pulse was ratherhard and laboured. He complained of tightness at the lowerpart of the throat. At tinzes, he said he could scarcely breathe,but that he was worse when the cough came on." In five hoursmore, being eleven from the time of the accident, and beforethe arrival of his attenclant, who had been again sent for, hedied.Examination of the body revealed congestion of the trachea

and bronchial tubes. "There was a considerable effusion of bloodinto the bronchial tubes. The heart was flaccid, and containedlittle blood; the interior of the heart and aorta, was slightlyinflamed. The blood gave a, slightly acid reaction with test-paper. The liver and all other parts of the body presented ahealthy appearance." The condition of the larynx is notstated, yet it is 2wobccble that it played a principal part in thetragedy.What could be done in such a, case? If litmus paper,

previously reddened by an acid gas, be brought over a jarcontaining carbonate of ammonia, the colour will be speedilyrestored, and I find that air sufficiently impregnatecl with thealkali to effect this’ object can be easily respired. Aqueousvapour, charged with ammonia, answers still better, and maybe readily prepared, by dropping a lump of the carbonate intoa vessel containing hot water. In a similar case to the above,I would suggest, then, the inhalation, as eccoly as possible,of the alkaline vapour, directing the patient to make deepinspirations at intervals. This would perhaps put a stop toany further mischief. Swabbing the larynx with a weakalkaline solution is another expedient, which might be adopted,but would be less efficacious than the inhalation. ’

Should the practitioner not be called to the case until thebreathing has become embarrassed, trial should still be madeof the alkaline vapour. If this, and other means, should failto afford relief, if the dyspno2a should become so urgent as tothreaten asphyxia, and if the obstruction should appear to besituated in the larynx, the question would be as to the per-formance of tracheotomy. Supposing the co-existence of onlya moderate degree of bronchitis, this operation if not delayedtoo long, would afford a fair chance of rescuing the sufferer froma terrible death.April 4, 1854. AN OLD SUBSCRIBER.

THE CHOLERAIN

THE UNITED KINGDOM IN 1854.

IN reasoning upon the numerous and often conflicting appa-rent facts connected with the history of cholera, it is beyondall things necessary that such facts be taken for no more thanthey are worth, and that a careful discrimination be made be-tween what they prove in veritate and in srecie only. The

case we alluded to -last week, of the nurse in La C7tcti-iti,strongly shows the necessity of strict attention being paid tothis point, as will also the illustrations we shall further offer.From the data derived from the official returns received by theCommissioners in Lunacy, and placed in the hands of the com-mittee of the College of Physicians, it appears (page 178 of

Report) that in the West York Lunatic Asylum, 98 out of 633patients died, and only 1 nurse out of 51 attendants and otherresident officers; and in the Bethnal-green House Asylum, 54patients died out of 567, and 2 attendants out of 71. Now, itmight be argued that this comparative immunity of the attend-ants on the sick of cholera who were dying in the above pro.portions proves ’’ the absence of contagion or other infectiouspower" on the one hand, and on the other leads to the beliefthat the insane are particularly susceptible of the morbific in-fluence of the disorder. But when it is considered that a sus-

ceptibility to the disease, similar to that manifested by theinsane, is also evinced by soldiers fatigued by long marches, andits observed in convicts under long sentences of imprisonment,in whom the nervous powers, even more than the nutritive efunctions, are depressed,"—(College Reports, p. 179.) we areonly shown that ’whatever is the cause of the disease, it may beescaped or resisted by one class of persons, while those ofanother class in the same building suffer." " Thus, in MilibankPrison, during the entire epidemic of 1848-49, 48 convicts died,the average number in the prison during the period being1107; while only two deaths occurred among the officers andthe members of their families resident in the prison, the numberof whom amounted to 195. The prisoners therefore sufferedin a proportion four-fold greater than the officers and theirfamilies."—(op. cit. 179.) Again, with respect to the assumedproof thus afforded of non-infectiousness, it may be remarkedthat many other conditions are requisite in the person besideproximity to the focus of zymotic poisoning, in order that

(universally admitted) zymotic diseases shall be propagated inthe way in question. Further, whilst the first glance at thematter might incline to the belief of non-infectiousness, thesecond would not, if we may accept the following statement ofDr. Baly :-" ln Millbank Prison, as in the lunatic asylums,the number of deaths among the officers and attendants is too.small to afford satisfactory data for estimating the risk incurredin attendance on cholera patients. But the evidence these in-stitutions afford, scanty and inconclusive as it is, must not beoverlooked. The attendants engaged on the sick certainlysuffered in a larger proportion than those not so employed.The exact number of persons brought into contact with thepatients struck with cholera in the lunatic asylums is notknown; but there can be no doubt that the two or threedeaths formed a much larger proportion amongst the attend-ants thus employed than the three or four deaths among thoseofficers and attendants who had little or no intercourse withthe patients labouring under the disease."—(p. 180.) Thegreat difficulty surrounding the questions we have now andbefore touched upon has been well pointed out by ProfessorAlison, of Edinburgh, (Medico-Chirurgical Review, xxv. p. 5,)when he dwells upon the impossibility of commanding all theconditions of any experiment or contrived observation, so as toleave out one after another of these conditions in each repeti-tion of the observation, and have an instantia crucis as to theinfluence of any one of them (e. g., contact with the alreadysick, depressing hygienic conditions, moral and physical, &c.)on the result.The Cork Reporter contains the following record, dated from

Kanturk, Thursday evening : " We are happy to be able tostate that, since our last report, under date this day week, nocase of cholera has appeared in the town, and but two, of a verymitigated character, in the Quarry auxiliary workhouse, theparticulars of which, as detailed by Dr. Barry to the guardians,will be found in the report of their proceedings."The Belfast W7tig of Saturday says:—" We regret to say

that on Thursday evening there were thirty-eight cases treated,of which thirteen terminated favourably; and, although noofficial returns have been since made,- we are given to under-stand that up to last night the number of persons affected, andthe type of the disease itself, afforded no room for congratula-tion, but the reverse." Mr. Laity, one of the officers of herMajesty’s steamer Advice, has died of cholera at KilruSh.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, SATURDAY, APRIL 8.

(Before Baron Martin.)

UTTERING FORGED DIPLOMAS.

LEWIS Bossy surrendered to take his trial for a mis-demeanour.Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Poland were counsel for the prosecution;

Mr. Clarkson and Mr Hawkins appeared on behalf of thedefendant.Mr. Bodkin said that the offence imputed to the defendant

by this indictment, was having uttered, as true, a false diplomaof the Royal College of Edinburgh, entitling him to assume thetitle of " Doctor of Medicine." He understood that the defen-dant was really a licentiate of the Apothecaries’ Company, andhe was entitled to that title, but he had no authority to practiseas a physician, which he professed to do under the falsecertificate or diploma which was now the subject of inquiry.He thought it right to state that the defendant had assumedto act as medical referee to several life insurance companies;and, in consequence of certain circumstances, which on thepresent occasion he should not be justified in making a further

432

allusion to, inquiries -were made which resulted in the discoverythat, although the defendant professed to act as a physician,he had no title whatever to that rank, and the present pro-secution was, in consequence, instituted against him.

Mr. C. King deposed that he was a surgeon, practising atNo. 3, Brunswick-place, Shoreditch. The defendant formerlypractised at the same place, and he purchased the business ofhim in June, 1852. The defendant represented himself to himas a physician of the University of Edinburgh, and the docu-ment now in question, which he said was his diploma, was hungup in a frame in the room where they used to see their patients.It was arranged that they should carry on the business

together for twelve months, and the defendant then left, andshortly afterwards, witness discovered that the diploma was aforgery. While the defendant and he were together, he fre-quently questioned him about the diploma, and he said

distinctly that he had been to Edinburgh to be examined, butthat he was not there more than thirty-six hours. He likewisetold him that he was examined by three gentlemen, and thatthey told him to retire, and shortly afterwards he was calledinto the room again and informed that he had passed. He saidthat he then paid £30 for fees, and was told that the diplomawould be sent to him by post, and that he subsequently receivedthe document in question. Witness afterwards told the de-fendant that his diploma was a forgery, and he then said, " ForGod’s sake, don’t mention it, as I have been deceived ; but Icould go at any time to Edinburgh and point out the house whereI was examined.’’

In answer to questions put by Mr. Clarkson, the witness saidhe was aware that diplomas were advertised for sale, and espe-cially that German diplomas were advertised very commonly.These diplomas would enable any man to put M.D." afterhis name, if he were fool enough to do so. (A laugh.) Before

any one could pass the Apothecaries’ Company, it was necessarythat he should be nominally apprenticed for five years, andthat he should study three years at an hospital. The witnessfurther stated that he had nothing to do with the presentprosecution.

Evidence was then given that the defendant had representedhimself to the conductors of a Medical Directory as an "M. D.,"and the author of a work on Diarrhœa. An agent for severalinsurance companies also proved that he had gone to Edinburghfor the purpose of making inquiries, and that he had ascertainedthat the story of the defendant was false. I

Dr. Thomas Traile deposed that he was a member of theRoyal College of Edinburgh, and one of the examiners. Theyissued diplomas conferring the rank of physician, but the onenow produced was a forgery in every respect. Their diplomaswere in the Latin tongue, and were similar in form to this one,but the forged document in no other respect resembled a genuineone. In order to obtain such a diploma, it was necessary thatthe applicant should have studied four years, three in any col-lege, or acknowledged school of medicine, and one in Edinburgh.There was also always a personal examination of a very search-ing character before a diploma was granted.

Inspector Brennan deposed that he took the defendant intocustody upon a warrant, and on his telling him what he wascharged with, he said, "Dear me, you surprise me," and askedif it was likely to be serious. Witness told him that he couldnot say anything or give him advice, and the defendant thensaid, "he would tell him the whole truth of the matter, andthat was, that while he was studying at Exeter-hall, a personwho was a stranger to him, asked him if he would like to havean M. D. -ship, and he told him he should very much, and theperson then told him he must write a work on some disease, andhe did so-upon Diarrhœa—and he then received the diplomafrom the party he referred to, and paid him l23 for it." Thedefendant added, that he had no idea the document was forgeduntil ::’.11’. King informed him of it, and he then wrote to thecollege authorities at Edinburgh, inviting inquiry into his con-duct, and as he had not received any answer, he thought theywere satisfied.

lTr. Clarkson addressed the jury with a good deal of earnest-ness on behalf of the defendant, and urged that they would bejustified in coming to the conclusion that the defendant reallyhad been deceived in the matter, and was therefore entitled toan acquittal. He said it was admitted that diplomas wereadvertised and sold, and that it -was very possible that thedefendant; actuated by the vanity of having M.D. attached tohis name, had been foolish enough to purchase one, and thishad brought him into the present difficulty. He called theattention of the jury to the fact that the defendant had passedthe examination of the Apothecaries’ Company, and must haveundergone a long course of stuclv to enable him to do so, andhe said he should show by the testimony of numerous witnesses

that he really was a person of skill in his profession. He con-cluded by observing that, if the defendant had really been awareof any fraud, it was not likely that he would have suffered thedocument to remain in the possession of Mr. King after he left,and that, under all circumstances, the jury would be justifiedin saying that he was not guilty.

Dr. Guy Babington, Dr. Hanley, and a number of othergentlemen were then examined, and they gave the defendanta high character for honour and integrity.Mr. Baron Martin summed up, andThe jury after a little hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty,

but with a strong recommendation to the merciful considerationof the Court.The learned Judge ordered the defendant to be called up for

judgment, and said that the jury had returned a very properverdict, and he should have been very sorry if they had returnedany other. It was undoubtedly an offence to utter a diplomalike this, and the medical world should understand that if sucha document was hung up in their houses where patients mightsee it, it was an uttering in law, and rendered them liable tothe consequences. He could conceive cases in connexion withinsurance of lives, where very great mischief might arise froman individual holding himself out falsely to be a physician. Noman ought to trade upon a false bottom, and undoubtedly, thefact of a person professing to have a diploma from the Collegeof Edinburgh, where it was known that a very severe examina-tion had to be undergone, was calculated to give a man aposition, and create a confidence which no man ought to possessunless he was really entitled to it. It was his intention on thepresent occasion merely to pass a nominal sentence, which wasone of two days’ imprisonment, and the defendant under thatsentence would be entitled to his immediate discharge, but hehoped that the present proceedings would have the effect ofputting a stop to such practices in future.

Medical News.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. - At the usualquarterly meeting of the Comitia Majora, held on Monday,April 10th, the following gentlemen, having undergone thenecessary examinations for diploma, were admitted Membersof the College :-

DR. FRANCIS, Albemarle-street.DR. MARTIN, Cambridge.DR. THOMPSON, South Molton-street.

Also-DR. BROWN, Nottingham;DR. O’NEILL, Manor Hamilton, Co. Leitrim;

were admitted Extra-Licentiates.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS.—The following gentle-men, having undergone the necessary examinations for thediploma, were admitted Members of the College at a meetingof the Court of Examiners on the 7th inst.:-

BAKEWELL, ROBERT HALL, Waltham Abbey.DAY, HORACE, Hon. East India Company’s Service.EDMONDS, JAMES, Burnham, Bucks.HAFFENDEN, DALTON ADOLPHUS, Hanwell, Middlesex.MANLEY, JOHN, Credit on, Devon.MEADOWS, ROBERT WYATT, Army.MEDD, WILLIAM HENRY, Stockport, Cheshire.ORMEROD, LAWRENCE, Rossendale, Lancashire.PROCTOR, WILLIAM BIRKETT, Kirby-Lonsdale, Westmore-

land.SYMONS, CROFT GEORGE, Royal Navy.WAGHORN, ALBERT RICHARD, Hon. East India Company’s

Service, Bengal.WILSON, CHARLES CoorER WATSON, Hon. East India Com-

pany’s Service, Bengal. ’

The following gentlemen were admitted Members of theCollege, at the meeting of the Court, on the 10th inst. :-CARTER, ROWLAND WIMBURN, Army.KILBURN, WILLIAM BvERS, West Auckland, Durham.LANGSTON, JOHN, Grantham.MUSCRAET, HENRY, Pontefract.PARKER, JAMES PRESTWOOD, Louth.TREFF11Y, RICHARD BARON, Nottingham.SOCIETY FOR THE RELIEF or WIDOWS AND ORPHANS

OF MEDICAL IN LONDON AND ITS VICINITY.— Our readerswill see by the advertisement in this day’s journal that thedinner of this Society is appointed to take place on Saturday,the 22nd, instead of Saturday, the 29th inst.