NORTHERN CIRCUIT.

Carlisle, Friday, February 20, 1874.
(Before Mr. Justice DENMAN.)

REG. v. MACLEOD.

(12 Cox's Criminal Cases, 534.)

Manslaughter.-Medical Man. - Negligence. - Evidence.

A medical man is bound to use proper skill and caution in dealing with a poisonous drug or dangerous instrument, and if he does not do so and death ensues, he is guilty of manslaughter; aliter if it is want of skill arising from mere error of judgment.

ALEXANDER MACLEOD was charged with the manslaughter of his wife, Annie Macleod, at Carlisle, on the 15th of October, 1873. Thurlow & T. F. Fenwick were for the prosecution. Charles Russell, Q. C., & Fawcett were for the defence.

The case against the prisoner was that of having unlawfully killed his wife by having administered to her a large quantity of a certain drug called muriate of morphia. From the evidence it appeared the prisoner, who had been for about twenty or thirty years a surgeon on the medical staff of the Madras Army in India, came over to live in England, about a year and a half or two years ago, and shortly after came to Carlisle, and brought with him the deceased woman, his wife. For a short time before the 15th of October, while the prisoner and his wife were living together in Chiswick Street, Carlisle, one of their children, who was about six years of age, became ill of typhoid fever, and for a fortnight before that the deceased woman had been in a bad and weak state of health. That indisposition was materially increased by having to attend to her sick child, which she had done most assiduously, and for several days previous to the 15th of October, she appeared never to have obtained good rest. In the middle of that day-the 15th of October-she appeared very unwell indeed, and the prisoner, finding she had not obtained any proper rest, determined to give her an opiate. At four P. M. he went to Mr. Todd, a chemist in the town, and there obtained in a bottle twenty grains of morphia, and paid eight pence for it, that being the price of that quantity to a medical The prisoner went home, gave his wife one grain, after weighing it, and administered other doses without weighing them; altogether he administered something like sixteen and a half grains before seven o'clock that evening, in about three or three and a half hours. About 6.30 the prisoner went for Dr. Walker, and told him his wife had taken too much morphia, and as they were proceeding from Dr. Walker's house to the prisoner's they had a conversation in which the prisoner stated that he had given her repeated doses of morphia; that he had given her one grain as a first dose which he nad weighed, but that in repeating the doses he had not weighed them, but guessed the quantity. Dr. Walker on his arrival found the poor woman lying on the hearth rug in front of the fire suffering from pain and apparently unconscious. Dr. Walker tried various

man.

means of restoring her. At twenty minutes before nine o'clock, Dr. Maclaren was called in and he injected atropine as an antidote. The deceased was then in a state almost comatose, and it was found impossible to rouse her. She died at ten o'clock, having all the symptoms of death by morphia. Under these circumstances it was submitted by the prosecution that the conduct of the prisoner had been so heedless and reckless in giving such large doses of morphia, that he was criminally liable and was guilty of the offence of manslaughter. For the prosecution the following evidence was given :

Elizabeth Mitchell said: I went to Dr. Macleod's as cook, on the 19th of October. I was in his service on the 15th October. Mrs. Macleod had not been well for nearly a fortnight before her death, but was taken worse the last few days. During the last three days she had not had any proper rest owing to her little boy being ill. On the morning of the day of her death when she came down to breakfast she did not appear at all well.

Cross-examined. The prisoner also assisted in waiting on her all day. There were four children in the house, and the eldest boy was very ill of typhoid fever; the prisoner also attended to him, and prescribed for him. Mrs. Macleod was very anxious about the child and had no proper rest. For about three nights before her death she had hardly any rest at all. Dr. Macleod's rest was also much broken. They lived very happily together and did not visit much. I did not notice in the morning that Mrs. Macleod rather rambled in her mind, but I noticed it about three o'clock. She had given up the idea of going to the wedding of her sister three days before. On the day of her death she said she would like to go to the wedding, but would not like to leave her little boy. I took her breakfast in that morning, but she could not eat it, and as far as I know she had no solid food that day. Deceased died shortly before ten.

Elizabeth Dunne said she was employed as charwoman by Mr. and Mrs. Macleod. I went as soon as they took the house in Chiswick Street; as far as I can recollect it was about the 8th of July. I was for five weeks altogether from the 8th July; I was there during the whole of the week in which the 15th of October fell. I never waited on Mrs. Macleod. It was only once when she was ill that she required waiting upon. I saw the deceased a few days before the 15th of October; she was very poorly the whole of the week. She seemed very much depressed, very low, complained she had got no sleep, and was very anxious about the child. The child was ill about a fortnight before Mrs. Macleod died. No doctor attended either Mrs. Macleod or the boy. I was not present when Dr. Walker came; I left a little before seven and returned about nine. She died about a quarter before ten. I saw her about five o'clock on the day of her death lying on the hearth-rug in the drawing-room; I threw a rug over her. She appeared to be then wandering in her mind. I also saw her at three o'clock when there was also a little wandering, but she was not so bad as at five; I saw her in the morning and she then said she felt very ill. While the child

was ill she did nothing but wait on the child, of which she was very fond. When I returned at nine o'clock, Dr. Walker and Dr. Maclaren were there. I saw then if she was not dead she was very near it. She was lying at the foot of the stairs covered with rugs. Cross-examined. The doctors were endeavoring to rouse her up. I remember talking to her about the wedding. She told me to be sure to awake her at twelve, as she was going by the half-past one train to Nottingham, to the wedding; this was at three o'clock, and I expect it was half-past one in the day she meant ; she did not seem to know the hour.

William Rushton (Cecil Street, assistant to Mr. Joe Todd, drugist) said: I know Dr. Macleod. He came to our shop on the 14th of October last; asked for twenty grains of muriate of morphia, and I supplied him with it. I weighed it and put it into a small stopper bottle; I believe the bottle produced to be the same. It has a label on with the words "Morphia muries." He said muriate of morphia. If he had asked for morphia simply, I would have given him the same. I was about to put on a fresh label, and he said he would rather the old label remained the same as the bottle belonged to a medicine chest. I charged him eight pence for it the price usually charged to a medical man; the twenty grains filled the bottle.

Mr. Walker said: I am a surgeon and honorary surgeon to the dispensary; had never attended Mrs. Macleod professionally before the day of her death. On the 15th of October, about seven o'clock in the evening, the prisoner called for me, being about the nearest doctor to where he lived. He said his wife was very ill; he was afraid she had taken too much morphia, and asked me to go with him and I did so. On the way from my house to the prisoner's had a conversation with him; he said his wife had been attending upon a sick child, and she had very little sleep for about a week; that she was in a very excited state, and that he had given her some morphia to make her sleep; he did not know how much. He had given her one grain at first and he had given her several unknown doses every half hour; he said he guessed the quantities; he said he had given the first dose about four o'clock, but it took no effect, she had not been sent to sleep, and she did not go to sleep till after the last dose. That was all the conversation they had. Prisoner then appeared to be in a very excited state. The drawingroom was down-stairs, and I there saw Mrs. Macleod on the hearthrug before the fire with a blanket over her. She was in a state of coma, her breathing was difficult, she was livid in her face, and her pupils were contracted; I failed to arouse her by shaking her, and went for my stomach pump and injected hot water, and what came back was the color of port wine. Dr. Macleod said he had given her the morphia in port wine. Was away for my stomach pump about five minutes, and when I returned she was lying in the lobby covered with a blanket. Went on doing all I could to arouse her, aided by the prisoner, by applying mustard plasters to her legs and ammonia to her nostrils. We failed to arouse her, and I sent for Dr. Maclaren at half-past eight. He arrived, and we injected into

one of the veins atropine (an alkaloid of belladonna), to counteract the effects of the morphia. When I first arrived I could not tell whether her case was hopeless or not. In my opinion the deceased died from morphia. I made a post-mortem examination in conjunction with Dr. Maclaren. The post-mortem was consistent with death from morphia, and there was no other cause perceptible. In my opinion death resulted from poisoning by morphia. All the organs were healthy. Morphia is given to produce sleep and allay pain. Sometimes it is given generally for affections of the nervous system. It is a medicine well known; about equally known with atropine. Had no conversation with Dr. Macleod about the little bottle produced; Dr. Maclaren, who took charge of it, had seen the bottle, and as far as the appearance went it might contain about three grains. I have not very often administered morphia; it is a very ticklish thing to deal with. I know it to be dangerous, and I have not used it much. A grain has proved fatal ; generally speaking a weak woman would not stand so much as a strong man. Sometimes a person suffering from disease would stand more than a healthy person. From reading, I know that one grain and less have proved fatal, and twenty grains have not. I don't recollect having any conversation with Dr. Macleod about whether he had given his wife morphia before. In my opinion prisoner administered the morphia in too great a quantity. It is very difficult to measure the weight of morphia by the eye; it should be done by being weighed.

Cross-examined. The prisoner defended what he had done, and was not conscious of having made any blunder. There is a wide difference as to the mode of treatment by morphia; opium is used in cases of insomnia; morphia generally affects the patient rapidly; much, however, depends on whether there was much solid food in the stomach of the patient.

Dr. Roderick Maclaren said: I am a physician and graduate of Edinburgh University. Saw Mrs. Macleod, the deceased, a little before nine on the 15th of October; she was in the state described by Mr. Walker. Was present at the post-mortem examination; in my opinion, opium, in some form, was the cause of death; the prisoner gave me the bottle produced; it then contained three and a half grains of morphia; he also told me that he had given deceased one grain at four o'clock, which he weighed, and then larger doses without weighing them, up to half-past six. He said she had not been in the habit of taking morphia. I have had considerable prac tical experience in administering morphia, and in my opinion his mode of treating Mrs. Macleod was not a proper one: the doses were excessive; if three or four grains of morphia are administered, the effect generally takes place in about twenty or thirty minutes. This was the case for the prosecution.

DENMAN, J., in summing up the case to the jury, said, the law was this, whether a man be a medical man or not, if he dealt with dangerous medicines he was bound to use them with proper skill, and was bound to bring proper care, and employ proper caution, so that persons should not be endangered by want of skill on his part,

or want of caution or care in dealing with those deadly ingredients. Whether it be deadly weapons, or drugs, the law was the same, and it made no difference whether a medical man was dealing with a patient, or, as a volunteer, dealing with a friend or with his wife. The jury might be enlightened by looking at the relations between the parties, and he was by no means prepared to say that, in judging of the evidence, it would not enlighten them very much, and enable them to appreciate the evidence on the main point, whether the man did not do his best, not in the sense of doing a bad best but doing a good best, he being a medical man, and therefore likely to know whether a drug was likely to be dangerous in the quantity administered or innocuous. There was ample evidence that the death of the deceased was caused by morphia. There was great difference of opinion as to the quantity of the drug which could be administered safely; however, if the jury were satisfied that the death was caused by morphia; and if it was administered without proper care, skill, and caution, and without a proper knowledge of morphia by the prisoner, whether in the weighing of the drug, or in any other way that would be clear negligence, he would not use the term "gross negligence," because it was liable to misinterpretation — and if that was so, the prisoner would be guilty of manslaughter. But if the drug was administered without want of skill and intending to do for the best, doing nothing, in fact, a skilful man might not do, then if the jury merely thought it was some error of judgment which anybody might have committed, the prisoner should be acquitted. Not guilty.

-

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.

Tuesday, March 18, 1873.

(Present: The Right Hons. Sir JAMES W. COLVILE, Sir BARNES PEACOCK, Lord Justice MELLISH, Sir MONTAGUE E. SMITH, and Sir ROBERT P. COLLIER.)

REG. v. CoOTE.

(12 Cox's Criminal Cases, 557; 9 Moore's Privy Council Cases N. S. 463.) Depositions on Oath of a Prisoner.— Admissibility in Evidence.-Criminating Questions. Ignorantia Juris. Caution to Witness. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 18.

By an act of the Quebec Legislature, certain officers called "fire marshals" are ap pointed with power to inquire into the origin of fires in Quebec and Montreal, and for that purpose to examine persons on oath. Upon an inquiry, held in pursuance of this statute, as to the origin of a fire in a warehouse occupied by the prisoner, he was examined on oath as a witness. No caution was given to him that his evidence might be used against him. At the time of such examination there was no charge against the prisoner or any other person. Subsequently the prisoner was tried for arson of the said warehouse, and his depositions made at the inquiry before the fire marshals were admitted as evidence against him. Held (reversing the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench for the Province of Quebec, Canada), that the depositions were properly admitted.