The Sun. — London, England, 1857-06-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONEON ) THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 25, 1857. LAW INTELLIGENCE. --June 23. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. (Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.) JONES versus HALES. This was an action for an alleged libel avainst the de he Daily News. Mr, Sergeant Byles, Mr. E. James , fondant, as publisher of til d e D Keene were counsel for and M r. Keene were counsel for the plaintiff; Mr. Th il, Mr. Lush, and Mr. Fitzpatrick the plaintiff ; Mr. Hil 1, for the defendant. Mr. Keene opened the pleadings. The declaration contained a count charg in g the d efend ant w i t h a libel. The d efendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; and as to part of the alleged libe l, a justification. ate Sergeant Byles, in addressing the jury, said the plaintiff, Dr. Jones, was a gentleman who had pro fessed the pactice of medicine for a long series of years. He was for twenty years a practitioner at Lutter worth, and was now residing in Albany-street, Regent's Park. The defendant was the r gistertd proprietor of the Daily News, and the action was brought for a serious libel contained in the Daily News of Monday, the 10th November last. He only did the Daily News justice when he said that it was not in the habit of inserting articles which assailed the character of private individuals, but on the present occasion there had ap peared in its columns a libel of a character which it was utterly impossible that any gentleman should allow to pass without appearing before a public tribunal and de• mending an explanation thereupon. He might say that where a man's character was dealt with unfairly and un justly, but only general accusations were made, the pro per course was to pass them over in silence and to leave them alone ; but where a distinct accusation of a very serious nature, or even of a trifling nature, was made against the personal character of an individual, if he were to hold up his head in society, it was absolutely essential that he should appeal to the lass for re dress. He gathered from what appeared in this libel, as undoubtedly the fact was, that a gentleman of the name of Brettell, an English gentleman, was resident in Paris, and that he had a fortune of some four or five thousand a year. He died in the month of November, 1856. Shortly after his death there appeared the extraordinary paragraph in the Daily News to which he woi call their attention, and on which he should take liberty of making one or two observations. The proprietors of the Daily News were represented by their able counsel, and the jury would bear whether they intended to uphold their plea of justi fication by any evidence. The libel complained of ap peared in a letter from a correspondent of this news paper, dated "Paris, Saturday Evening," and;it was in these words : "I mentioned two or three days since that some friends of the late Mr. Alfred C. Brettell, entertaining suspicions that the cause of his death had, not been truly stated, had applied to the Procureur Imperial for a post mortem examination. The funeral took place before any order on the subject was made. But the result of a judicial inquiry has so far confirmed the grounds for suspicion, that the authorities have thought it right to have the body exhumed. A post mortem examination was made this day by Dr. Tardien, the eminent surgeon usually employed in such cases, and the contents of the stomach, the heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two sealed jars, have been taken away to be examined. The subject causes so much excitement among the English resi dents of the Faubourg St. Honore, and is so generally talked of, that I no longer fear to prejudice any one by giving an outline of the case as it ,has been represented to me. Mr. Brettell was a gentleman of a large fortune, amounting, as some say, to 60,0001., and as others say, to 100,0001. Toe whole of this fortune is understood to be left by will to an English lady, now in Paris, who was no relation to the deceased. He was in a bad state of body, owing to intemperate habits, and it appears that he was shaken and injured a good deal by the fall from the box of his carriage, which occurred, not at Chantilly, as stated by mistake, but on the Lamarche race-course. After that accident he was taken home and placed under the care of his ordinary medical at tendant, Dr. M'Carthy, an English subject, but a li censed member of the French Faculty of Medicine. He got considerably better, and Dr. M'Carthy did not con sider him in any immediate dan g er. However, whether by his own wish or not, I have not heard, a Dr. Jones, who it seems had attended him on previous occasions, was sent for by telegraph from London, and it is alleged that Dr. Jones proceeded to treat him without putting himself in com munication with Dr. M'Carthy, which it is said, accord ing to the medical etiquette usually observed, he ought to have done. This Dr. Jones administered to the pa tient a white powder, which he took from his waistcoat pocket, and two hours after taking this powder Mr. Brettell died. Now the circumstances which are consi dered to call for explanation oa the part of Dr. Jones are that he at first signed a certificate that the deceased had died from epilepsy, that he subsequently stated that he and Dr. M'Carthy were both prepared to certify that concussion of the brain was the cause of death (the fact being that Dr. M'Carthy declines to concur in any such certificate), that he has on several occasions admitted that the medicine he administered to Mr. Brettell was a most potent one, and that when pressed to say what it was, his only answer is, ' That is my secret.' On being interrogated by the commissary of police, and asked to produce a specimen of the powder, he said he had none left, but he finally wrote a prescription for making it up. Although the circumstances certainly call for that thorough investigation which they will receive, I can not help thinking that it will turn out that there has been no wilful poisoning in the case. In the meantime Dr. Jones has been ordered not to leave Paris, and is Under surveillance." Now the jury would pardon him for reminding them that no excuse for uttering slanders was to be found in the fact that the parties had heard them from other peo ple. It was perfectly clear, and had been recently laid down in cases which be need not allude to, that if a person published a libel on another, imputing to him great misconduct, his saying at the same time, " I have beard it ; it is the current report," was no justification whatever, for if that were so, then the most atrocious libels might be published on anybody, merely by adding that people said so, and that the writer had heard it. When the defendant assumed to justify such a libel as that, it was necessary for him to show, not only that the reports existed, but that the circumstances embodied in those reports were true. He had read the libel, and there were some facts in it which undoubtedly were correctly stated. Mr. Brettell was a gentleman of large fortune living at Paris. He would not say how Mr. Brettell met his death, but he believed it was true that he was shaken and injured by a fall from the box of his carriage on the La marche racecourse, and that he sustained a serious in jury, from which two or three days after he died. So much of this libel was true. It was also true that there was a post-mortem examination, It was not true that the funeral took place before any order on that subject was made, and there were many other statements which were not true, but with which he need not encumber his statement at that moment. The paragraph stated that Mr. Brettell had left the whole of his fortune to an English lady now in Paris, who was no relation of the deceased. Now here was a dark insinuation. Then it stated that Dr. Jones was sent for from London, and that Dr. Jones administered to the deceased a white powder, which he took from his waistcoat pocket, and that when Dr. Jones was asked to state what the white powder was, he replied, "That is my secret." The pa ragraph wanton to state that "although the circumstances certainly call for that thorough investigation which they will receive, I cannot hety thinking that there has been no wilful poisoning in the case. In the meantime Dr. Jones has been ordered not to leave Paris, and ,is under surveillance." The meaning of that was that people thought Dr. Jones had murdered the deceased. But dismissing the charge of wilful poisoning, here was a gentleman in the practice of physic who was charged, at all events with the grossest possible m i scon d uct and ignorance. It was stated that be administered this white powder, and that the deceased died two hours after. The writer then went on to state circumstances of suspicion against De. Jones, saying that be had sign ed a certificate that the deceased died of epilepsy, and that he subsequently stated that he and Dr. M'Carthy were both prepared to certify that death was caused by concussion of the brain, whereas Dr. Weedily declined to concur in such certificate. The learned sergeant proceed ed to say that he should have an opportunity of address ing them again, and that it was sufficient to state at pre sent that this was a libel of a most serious character. He had nothing to do but to put in the libel,, and the defendant stood convicted of having published it. The defendant's counsel said the libel was true in substance and in effect. That was the fearful issue which lay upon his learned friend. He ventured to prognosticate that at the conclusion of this case his learned friend would find that he had not supported his plea of justification, and that it had not availed him. George Oakley was then called—He produced the cer tificate kept at the Stamp-office, certifying that the de fendant is publisher of the Daily News. Mr. James said that was the case for the plaintiff. Mr. Hill submitted that there was no case. There waa no evidence that the Dr. Jones mentioned in the Paragraph was the plaintiff in this case. The Judge—There is cert a i n l y no ev id ence o f that. ~. • " 1 "- W. Jon es was t h en called. He said—l am a surgeon comer in at o L a n d tterworth. My father i s a me di ca l practi my fathe r . r' I hav e rea d thi s lib e l . I t applies to for some yea n : Brettell was a patie n t o f m y f at h er ' s Cross-exarnieeed b father that he, h ad Mr. Hill—l have h ear d f rom my have also heard iranaattended him f or d e li r i um t remens. I uly father re that rs. Cngham succeeded to one-half eM a a : t Bttell' M s fortune. unni She is not related to Mr. B rettell The reason I believ e th e libel applies to my fath er is, t hat I received a l e tter 'co him, and from my knowi ng e k e m Mr, Brattell, and that he pal a patient of my father's. Mr. Hill then addressed the jury for the defence. He said his friend Mr. Sergeant B y les had broug ht to bear Lis dexterity in his conduct of this caee. Ile had made some observations to them, which mi g h t be termed corn mon-place, because they were used in all cases of this kind. If a man's private character were assailed it was a matter of course that he should seek to set himself right with the public. B u t w hat had Dr. Jones d one in this easel This libel as it was called was published ea Nov. 10, and on th e 13th an act i on was brought. Hi s l earned friend h a d a d m i tte d t h at the Da i ly Yeas was not i n the habit of printing libels against the personal character of individuals. The article complained of appeared in the letter of the Paris correspondent, and Dr. Jones did not condescend to write to the Daily News saying, " You have done wrong," and demanding a coctrad;ction of any of the statements which were incorrect, N o ; but in order to justify his character he served the publisher with a writ, that he might put damages into his own pocket and costs into the pocket of some one else. Then, why was the action conducted in this hurried cunning manner, holding everything back, and trusting to make out a case by picking boles in the case for the defence ? If the plaintiff had been actuated merely by a desire to place himself right before the public, would he not in the first place have demanded an explanation in the paper, and stated what were the true facts, and de manded that they should be placed in as prominent a part of the paper and in as large type as the statements com plained of had been ! And if, that not being done, he had brought his action, would he not have got into the wit ness-box this day, and on his oath stated that it was not true that he took a white powder from his waistcoat pocket and administered it to Mr. Brettell ; that it was not true that he signed a certificate that death was caused by epilepsy; that it was not true he had expressed his will ingness to sign a certificate that death was caused by con cussion of the brain 1 Why had not Dr. Jones ventured to do all that? Because he could not do it safely. Looking at his conduct and the conduct of his counsel, in the conduct of his case to-day, it was clear that the object was to ob tain a verdict which would put damages into the plain tiffls pocket, and costs into the pocket of some one else, and not to clear up Dr. Jones's character. What did this paragraph say ? It began by stating that " Some friends of the late Mr. Alfred C. Brettell, entertaining suspicions that the cause of his death bad not been truly stated, had applied to the Procureur Imperial for a post mortem examination." That was perfectly true. Then it stated that "The funeral took place before any order on the subject had been made ; but the result of a judi cial inquiry had so far confirmed the grounds for suspi cion that the authorities have thought proper to have the body exhumed." That was the fact. It went on to say, "a post-mortem examination was made this day by by Dr. Tardieu, the eminent surgeon usually employed in such cases, and the contents of the stomach, t the heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two sealed jars, have been taken away to be examined." That was likewise true. Then there was the statement that the whole of Mr. Brettell's fortune had been left by will to an English lady, who was no relation of the deceased. It appeared from the evidence that it was not the whole of his fortune, but only the half, which was left to her, and the statement was so far inaccurate. The other statements in the alleged bill were also in the main true. It was true that Dr. Jones was sent for by telegraph to London, that he proceeded to treat Mr. Brettell with out placing himself in communication with Dr. M'Carthy. He believed that Dr. Jones administered the medicine believing it would be beneficial to his patient, but he thought the jury would come to the conclusion that he was guilty of an error in judgment in administering it without consulting with Dr. M'Carthy. The certificate signed by the plaintiff that the deceased died from epilepsy would be produced, and it would be proved that the plaintiff afterwards stated that concussion of the brain was the cause of death. And there was this strong fact, that when Dr, M'Carthy came in the plaintiff led hum to suppose that he had given the deceased nothing more than an effervescingdraught,andDr.M‘Carthy would tell them that tartar emetic was a most proper medicine to give at that time. The only inaccuracy in the paragraph was that which spoke of Dr. Jones being under surveillance, the fact being that after the examination was over he asked if he might leave Paris, and he was told he might, so that he was only under surveillance till the investigation was over. Now, what was the charge against Dr. Jones that would have degraded him it he had not come before a public tribunal ? Look at the position of a jour nal conducted as the Daily News was, which, as his learned friend said, was not in the habit of inserting libels, but which bad to discharge its duty to the public by giving information. Here was a matter which had caused great excitement in Paris, and the newspaper properly gave information both with regard to public matters and social life. Here was an English gentle man residing in Paris, with a large fortune, who met his death in a manner that required investigation, a large portion of his fortune being left to a person who was no relative. What did the correspondent say in conclusion ? "I cannot help thinking that there has been no wilful poisoning in the case," showing that there was no desire to impute improper motives. Now, how came it that Mr. Brettell met with his death ? His father was originally in trade, and he amassed a large fortune, which the son was spending in Paris. His habits were not very temperate. On Sanday,ithe 26th of Oat., he had the misfortune to be thrown out of a dogcart, sustained a slight concussion of the brain, and was taken to his house. Dr. M'Carthy was sent for, and he saw him in his room, and would tell them the condition which Mr. Brettell was in. He was in the perfect pos session of his senses. He told him how he had fallen, and he actually asked to have the trowsers produced, in order to show how he had gone against the wheel, and he also asked for a bag of money which he bad taken with him to the racecourse, and which he placed under his pillow for safe custody. He (Mr. Hill) mentioned this because his friend would probably try to go into evi dence to show that there was a concussion of the brain, and it therefore became material to show how Mr. Bret tell was on the Sunday afternoon. Dr, M'Carthy saw him again in the evening, and on Monday morning he was going on as favourably as possible. On the Tuesday morning Dr. M'Carthy was sent for about four o'clock. He came and found his patient in a feverish condi tion, and while be went to the table for the purpose of writing a prescription, he heard that peculiar scream which was the first outbreak of an epileptic fit. After a time he became in a comatose condition. Afterwards he recovered his senses, and had another fit about 8 o'clock, and then he had some refreshing sleep for about two hours. On the Wednesday morning he was rather better. In the evening he was ordered a batb, and delirium tre mens set in, but he was conscious of the delusions. On the Thursday Dr. Jones was telegraphed for, and he ar rived about 9 o'clock in the morning of Friday at Mr. Brettell's residence. He believed the first thing that Dr. Jones did was to or der the deceased a seidlitz powder, and then he took from his waistcoat pocket a white pow der and administered some of it. Now Dr. M'Carthy would tell them that there was nothing in the condition of Mr. Brettell to render it necessary to give him medicine before Dr. M'Carthy arrived. No doubt medical eti qaette should give way when the life of a human being was in danger ; but there was nothing in Mr. Bretteli's condition to make hanecessary to ad minister to him medicine before the arrival of Dr. M`Carthy, who lived within a ten minutes' walk. Dr. M'Carthy arrived in about a quarter of an hour, and for some reason or other Dr. Jones carefully conce aled from him the fact that he had given him the white powder. He thought it was on the Tuesday following that he first communicated the fact that he had administered tartar emetic to Mr. Brettell. And when it was considered that within two hours after the powder was adminis tered Mr. Brettell died, he was sure everybody would say that at all events this was a case requiring investiga tion. There was no doubt that rumours were abroad, and many persons were loud in the tone in which they con versed en this subject. The consequence was these was this order of the public authorities for the exhumation, and they would find that when it was stated to Dr. Jones that it was desirable there should be a post mortem examina tion before the funeral took place, he objected, and said his certificate would be abundantly sufficient. Mr. Brettell was buried, and he was exhumed by order of the public authorities. There was an examination of the contents of the Stomach by Dr. Tardieu, and it was proved there had been no poison whatever. Thee it was that Dr. Jones asked if he might quit Paris. What the Daily News bad done was to communicate that which was really a matter of public intelligence, affecting the public weal, a matter which was conversed of openly among the public, and not in the least degree te make an imputation against Dr. Jones. There was no malice against Dr. Jones, but Dr. Jones's conduct showed he did not want any explanation, but he wanted damages. It would be for the jury to say whether this was a pub lication that was intended to defame the character of Dr. Jones, or whether it related to a matter of public inte rest, written by a correspondent of the paper who had no ma lice against Dr. Jones ; and then they came to the other issue, whether the allegations in the paragraph were substantially true, and he should show that they were. The Court then adjourned. SECOND DAY—JUNE 24. The trial was resumed this morning, when an exami nation of the O'Gorman Mahon before a commission sit ting on the 21st Jan., at the Hotel Windsor, Paris, was put in and read. The material parts of it were that the witness was formerly a member of the House of Com mons ; that he now mixed with and knew the best of English society at Paris. He knew Mr. Brettell, who sought his acquaintance in Jan. or Feb., 1856, and for many reasons he took more interest in him than in an ordinary acquaintance. One was that at the first inter view Mr. Brettell ascertained that he had attained the highest degree in masonry, and he introduced himself to him as a brother mason, and called on him as being in a foreign land to extend to him such assistance and friendship as the obligations of masonry required him to do, describing himself as being destitute of family and friends. On one occasion the O'Gorman Mahon ex tracted from him a pledge or masonic obligation to ab stain from brandy and smoking, which he had every reason to know he kept till he left France about May last. He (the O'Gorman Mahon) was in Paris when Mr. Brettell met with the accident which preceded his his death, and called at his house immediately on hearing of it, but was nat allowed to see him. He inquired the state of his health of Dr. M'Carthy, who was attending Mr. Brettell, and Dr. M'Carthy said Mr. Brettell had met with an accident of a trivial nature. He did not attach any serious importance to if. The general im pression in the society in which the witness moved was, that Mr. Brettell had met with foul play and had been murdered. It was the general topic of conver sation in Paris. On going to the house of the de cesved on the Sunday after his death he found Mr. Pemberton, Mr. Thomas Cratwell, and the plain tiff there. He stated there were sinister rumours as to Mr. Brettell's death—a statement which the plaintiff in reply pooh poohed, said he would soon settle that, that Mr. Brettell died of concussion of the brain, and that he would sign a certificate to that effect; and he added that he was a man of celebrity in cases of the brain in England, and in all brain cases his certificate in England would be taken to be conclusive. Witness said such might be the case in England but would not be so in Paris, and that there was a much better way, which would only take a few minutes. Mr. Crat well said "How I" He replied, by Dr. M'Carthy and Dr. Jones making an examination of the body in the next room, which would only take a few minutes. Dr. Junes im patiently rejected the idea, saying, "'Our certificate will be quite sufficient." They all left the room and went down stairs, and on getting into the street they met Dr. M'Carthy and Mr. E . Burdett approaching. Some con versation passed, and Dr. M'Carthy said he was quite at a loss to know for what purpose Mr. Burdett had brought him up there from Lis own hou se . Wit ness said he presu me d it mus t h ave b een f or the purpose of Pung a certificate with Dr. Jones tied poor Brettell 1:1;tef concussion of the brain, upon which Dr. tviblaeltooked at him w ith astonishment, and in quired first stated r c e o p t d ha b ve induced h i m to entertain such a re in t p h eat d ing to him what the plain tiffn n otion, i o h n a . e Dr. M`Carthy said nothing would in du c e d rawing -r oom, on , p im " to wi f l i ich such a certificate, inconsistent as it was with the trutu. gl They then separated. In consequence of something he had learnt from the servants before they left the draw. I in;;-room to come down stairs, he spoke to the plaintiff in an inquiring manner as to the nature of a powder which he had administered to Brettell. Plaintiff replied that it was his usual powder, which witness had already known of, and that he had brought it over with him. He added, "My secret, you know ; my old powder.'i They had often conversed about this powder before, when Dr. Jones had told him it was his secret, and a terrible poison, that it was his own secret, and wit ness always gave him credit for it as some famous dis covery which Dr. Jones wished to take credit for. It was true that some friends of Mr. Brettell enter tained suspicions that the cause of his death had not been truly stated, and he as one of his friends took steps t) ensure an investigation. He went to the Procureur Imperial's residence, and made a statement, and was subsequently present when the body was exhumed at Pere-la-Chaise. Witness had from the Com missary of Police and subsequently from the Juge d'ln struction an intimation that Dr. Jones was ordered not to leave Paris in consequence of what had occurred. Witness was not the author of the article in the Daily News, and did not know who wrote it. On one occasion plaintiff said to William, one of Mr. Brettell's servants, " William, we are accused of murdering your master," and witness replied, " No, William, neither I nor any of the public ascribe any blame to you orany of the other servants." This was about two days before the funeral. He was still urging the plaintiff to have a post-mortem examination which led to his observation to William. D. J. M`Carthy, examined by Mr. Lush—l am a doc tor of the French Faculty of Medicine and practise in Paris. The late Mr. Brettell was introduced to me in Oct. or Nov., 1855. I attended him professionally. In April, 1856,1 attended him for delirium tremens, caused by intemperance. He recovered. I did not attend him after till he met with his accident in Oct., and I only saw him once in the interval. While I was attendinghim for delirium tremens in April, Dr. Jones, the plaintiff, came over. I had never heard of Dr. Jones before. On the 26th of Oct. I was sent for to attend Mr. Brettell. It was oa a Sunday, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Mr. Brettell hal been to some races, and being a kind man, he placed a groom who had met with an accident on his own brougham and came home at the back of a dog-cart, driven by his: friend Mr. Burdett. He fell from the dog cart in a sort of a race which was established between the dog-cart and a carriage. I found him in bed. He was sensible. The right eye was much bruised. The left wrist was sprained. He had contusions of the knees, and was much bruised by the fall. His pulse was low and the skin was cold. On referring to my diary I find his pulse was 70. Ido not refer to the quickness of the pulse when I say it was low. He requested that the trowsers he had on at the accident should be fetched to be shown to me, and that a bag of sovereigns should be brought him. I saw him again the same evening. He was better, his skin had warmed, and he was more com fortable. On the Monday he was better still. On the Tuesday morning, at four o'clock, I was summoned to see him. He was very restless. He had no sleep. He was not fevtaish, but he complained of a sense of stran gulation in the throat. I stepped into the drawing room to write a prescription for him, and while I was doing so, and his servant William was standing by, we both heard a scream. We immediately rushed into his bed-room, and found him in an epileptic fit. It lasted from a minute and a half to two minutes. I saw him again shortly afterwards, I was told he had had a se cond fit. His pulse that day was 68. I saw him three or four times on the Tuesday, and he was better. On the Wednesday his condition had changed entirely. He bad assumed then all the appearance of a person with delirium tremens. After two sleepless nights, on Wed nesday morning he had illusions which became delusions in the course of the day. I mean that in the morning he was able to correct the errors of sense, but in the evening he was not able to correct those mistakes. His appetite was not bad, bat he never did eat much. His pulse is marked 72, and "no feverishness." On the Wednesday, in the morning, he was dry-cupped at the back of the neck, and he had one or two seidlitz pow ders that day. He had cold applications to his head ; he had weak wine and water, and mustard poultices were applied to his legs. It is usual to administer opium in cases of this kind. I did not give him a single particle. I had bean cautioned against the use of opium in this particular case by Dr. Jones, who told me in April that he had previously used it on this individual with the worst effects. In the evening considerable violence was manifested by him, and the delusions were that of that character that I thought he might commit suicide. I thought he might throw himself out of the window, and I applied the strait waistcoat which was kept in the hone ready for such occasions. Dr. Jones told me he bad put it on Mr. Brettell on previous occa sions. Mrs. Cunningham on that day suggested that Dr. Jones should be sant for. If she had not. I should have demanded a consultation in Paris. Mrs. Cunningham informed me on Wednesday evening that she had sent for him. I went to see Mr. Brettell on the Thursday morn ing between 9 and 10. I find this in my diary, " Has bad no sleep, continues delirious, skin moist, pulse 72." He had a bath that day ; he bad an involuntary evacuation in the bath. I administered two seidlitz powders only that day. I saw him four times that day. He was suffer ing more than ever from delirium tremens. He was vio lent at times, but was agitated rather than violent. He was not in a state of coma that day. I called on him at half-past 9on Friday morning. Dr. Jones had arrived 15 or 20 minutes before. Dr. Jones and I, after the first greetings, had immediately a difference of opinion on the nature of the case, he being disposed to attribute all the symptoms to the concussion of the brain only, whilst the case appeared to me to be one of delirium tremens. He then informed me that he had given Brettell an efferves cing draught, a circumstance which I considered to be of no iznpor'sance. Did he say what it was ; a draught, an effervescing draught f—ile spoke lightly— a draught, an effervescing draught. State precisely—At this distance of time it is difficult to recollect precisely; but I believe it was an effervescing draught. I put down in my diary " Seidlitz powder, which was not administered by me." He was feverish. I have no note of the pulse, but believe it was 68. All Thursday it was 72. He knew me when taken by the hand. He vomited while I was there, once only. I re turned to the house at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Before that I found on my table a paper which I now produce, and which I believe to be in Dr. Jones's writing. I found it about half-past 12. [The paper was read. It purported to be a certificate signed by Dr. Jones, that Mr. Brettell had died in a fit of epilepsy in his presence at 7 minutes past 12.] I saw Dr. Jones about 4 o'clock. We had no conversation then about the cause of death. I had been sent for by him to explain to the physician sent by the authorities the reality of the death, the na ture of the ease, and the treatment. The physician did not come while I was there. I left a paper, in order that the French physician should collect from it the details necessary to state the cause of death. I had some conversation with Dr. Jones. I should explain that it is necessary that the physician should state the exact nature of the case. Dr. Jones said it would be more satisfactory to the feelings of the family if delirium tre mens was not mentioned. I said nothing in reply to that. I heard nothing said that day about a post mor tem examination. I next saw Dr. Jones on the Tuesday following, in the afternoon, at the door of Mr. Brettell's house. I had brought Mr. Robert Burdett with me. Dr. Jones was coming out of the house, accompanied by the O'Gorman Mahon, Mr. Pemberton, and Mr. Cratwell. We exchanged a few words. Dr. Jones re marked, " We shall have to give a certificate regarding the cause of Mr. Brettell's death." He added, or words to this effect—" His life was insured, and we had better say nothing about delirium tremens." I looked at Dr. Jones with some surprise, and said—" What do you or I care whether the company pay the money or not I We cannot give such a certificate," meaning one that would omit the mention of delirium tremens. He said nothing more, and I never heard another word about a certificate. No one at that meeting suggested a certifi cate that death arose from concussion of the brain. I was never prepared to certify that concussion of the brain was the cause of death. It was certainly not the cause of death, at least not in a direct manner, but it preceded and in some degree occasioned the symptoms which were the more immediate cause of death. I next saw Dr. Jones on the Tuesday following at the house of Mrs. Cunningham. I was asked to come. I met Dr. Jones, Mr. Cratwell, Mr. Pemberton, and several other persons, Mr. R. Burdett and his brother, I believe, amongst them. There were two subjects of conversa tion, first a general conversation and a private one between myself and Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones heard the general conversation, which was concerning the unpleasant rumours as to the manner by which Mr. Brettell had come to his death. I said I thought a post mortem examination should be made. Dr. Jones agreed with me entirely. I recollect Mr. Cratwell saying that is the proper course to be taken in the matter. In my private conversation with Dr. Jones I asked him to tell me what the powder was he had given to Mr. Brettell before my arrival. After some. hesitation he said, " Well, I don't mind telling you. I brought in my waistcoat pocket a grain and a half of tartar emetic, and I gave him one-half of i t." Up to that time I had not the most distant idea of what it was he had given him. Immediately on leaving Mrs. • Cunningham's house, I proceeded to the commissary of police, and as he was not at home . ' saw his secretary. Mr. Brettell was buried on the 6th Nov. I attended the funeral. He had been embalmed. That is frequent when there is any object in preserving the body. It is done by the injection of a fluid into the carotid artery. Mr. Burdett, Mrs. Cunningham's brother, had had it done. The post mortem examination was made two days after by order of the authorities. I was present. Dr. Tardieu made the examination. Dr. Jones also was there. On the head being opened, the brain and its mem branes were exposed. There was no change in the colour of the surface of the general envelope, the dura mater. On that being detached in order to remove the brain, a considerable quantity of fluid of a light red colour ran from the lower part of the brain. There was no clotted blood, but on the surface of the hemispheres there was a dark colour due to chronic disease, and there was adhe sion of the membranes to the substance of the brain in the parts corresponding to that c o l our . The b ra i n wee put into a jar by itself, and the commissary of police took charge of it. In another jar was put a portion of the liver, which was diseased, the lungs, and the intes tines. The presence of the red liquor on the brain was quite irreconcileable with the symptoms I had observed during life. There were five or six ounces of it, which must have produced pressure. Did you form any opinion of how it got there ?—lt is impossible to say, but I should be much inclined to con• jecture that the force of the engine employed to inject the fluid into the carotid artery had contributed to it. If the liquid had been there during life we should have had more or less stupor. I saw none of these symptoms, hurt the contrary. On the Thursday evening, the day of the funeral, Dr. Jonas told me he had been summoned to a'tend the commissary of poli c e. He did not tell me afterwards what he did when with the commissary of police. On:the evening of the post 'portent examination he said, " I am going„tbid evening. I asked the commissary of police if I might go, and he said certainly, you have got out of it with great eclat." This was on the Bth. I lived about three-quarters of a mile from the house of Mr. Brettall. When a medical man is called in to see a patient who had already been attended by another medi cal man, it is very unusual that he should prescribe before seeing the first medical man. What eflect would the administering a quarter of a grain of tartar emetic on the patient have in his state ? It lowered him. .... Had it in your judgment any connexion with his death ?—I did not see Mr.Brettellafter. 9 o'clock. Had it any connexion with his death ?—By lowering the system it is possible that it might hasten the termina tion of the case that was already very serious indeed. Would anything that tended to lower the system en danger the life of the patient ?—lt might it render more precarious. By the Judge—ln your judgment did it kill the man or not ?—that is a plain question. Witness (after a pause)—l certainly think it hastened the end of the patient. That you have already told us. You are a medical man, and your judgment will be exposed to criticism on both sides. If you can form a judgment, give it. Witness—Well, my lord, I think it did. Did what ?—lt hastened his end. Mr. Lush —lf you had been consulted should you I have permitted that medicine to be given I—Certainly not. The Judge—The idea of asking a medical man who has just told you that a certain medicine had hastened the death, if he would have permitted it to be given I I should not have noticed it, Mr. Lush, so strongly if it were not an abuse of tde position you have earned so well. Cross. examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—On the Thurs. day morning when you said you were inclined to think the plaintiff said he ova him an effervescing draught, did he not say he gave him his usual draught? Witness—l think he said his usual effervescing draught. Did he say his usual draught ?—No. Is this your handwriting—" He told me he had given Mr. Brettell his usual draught 1"—I dreamt so little of this containing anything more than the usual effervescing powder that I wrote in my book seidlitz powder. The Judge—Then you now have it recalled to your recollection that the words used by him were his usual draught ? —Yes. By Mr. Serjeant Byles—Dr; Tardieu is of the highest possible reputation and skill. He conducted the post mortem examination. The document produced is in his handwriting. It was written three months after the examination. --- Mr. Hill objected to the production of the document, and Serjeant Byles withdrew it. Cross-examination continued...l do not know whether Dr. Tardieu is here. It is usual in such cases for the medical officer to •make a report to the official who has directed him to perform the operation. I had no dis agreement with Dr. Tardieu on the cause of death. We differed in opinion, but did not express our opinions. There was no ground for suspecting poison. Before the examination I expressed an opinion that any such suppo sition was perfectly monstrous. It was I and Dr. Jones who jointly assisted in the examination. There was no more ground for suspecting that he had poisoned him than that I had. There was an old lesion of the brain. That was not complicated under the influence of a fall with an eflu4on of the blood :nto the membranes that enveloped the brain. We did not detect any trace in the brain of an effect from the fall. The fall had an influence, bnt it might have produced a functional, not an anato mical change. I will swear the fall did not produce an effusion of blood on the membranes which envelope the brain, nor any inflammation which led to an effusion of serum. The name serum may be given to the fluid that I saw. It is the only name that can be given to it. The consequence of inflammation is the production of serum. Chloride of zinc is used for embalming the body. The fluid was not examined or tested. I cannot give any case in which a body has been embalmed in which the substance used in embalmiug is found under the dura mater. It is very rare to make a post mortem examina tion after embalming. I never did before. Embalming is a very modern process. What is the composition of tartar emetio I—lt is a compound of tartrate of potass and antimony ; a very common medicine indeed. I have given it myself in cases of delirium tremens. It may have been strongly recommended by Dr. Greenwood, but it is not com monly used. Ido not know that it has been used in much larger doses. It acts very much on the skin. On the Thursday Mr. Brettell was kept down in bed by a sheet strapped across. These precautions were necessary, because he was a very powerful, strong man. By Mr. Serjeant Byles—l find in your memorandum there is this statersent—" Dr. Jones told m• he had given him what he called his usual draught." Yes. I have no memorandum of his vomiting. I do not know what it was be vomited in. I was present and his ser vant William Willis. He ran for the hand-basin or ves sel. I have expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Jones prescribing for him before seeing me. I know Mr. Clancy and the 0 Gorman Mahon. There Ihad been a misunderstanding between the Burdetts and the O'Gor man Mahon and Clancy. The O'Gorman Mahon and Clancy had been forbidden the house. By Mr. know it by a paper which was shown to me in Mr. Brettell's writing, forbidding his servants to admit them. The English lady mentioned in the libel I suppose refers to Mrs. Cunningham. Mr. Brettell ap peared to be on excellent terms with her and both the Burdetts. I have spoken of rumours that prevailed in Panie. The O'Gorman Mahon and Clancy were con cerned in these rumours. I heard them from many persons. By Mr. Lush—l should always give tartar emetic with some sort of stimulant, and in much smaller doses than three-quarters of a grain. I have said that that there was no ground for imputing poison. I meant criminally. There was no ground after the examination for saying there was either accidental or criminal poison. Mr. Frederick Carpenter Spey, examined by Mr. Hill—l am one of the senior surgeons of St. Bartho lomew's, and have been in practice many years. I have had considerable practice is cases of delirium tremens, and also in concussions of the brain where there has been effusion. I heard the description given by Dr. M`Carthy of the condition of Mr. Brettell on the morn ing of Friday, and that three-quarters of a grain of tarter emetic was given to him. In my judgment the effect of such a dose would be prostration of the system. Would that have any effect in hastening his death There cannot be much doubt of that, supposing the description of his condition to be correct. It tended to reduce the vital powers, and the result you can tell, The Judge—That is just what we wish you tell. Witness—And that is what I am unwilling to tell, unless you compel me to do it, The Judge—Then I do. Witness—Then I think it would accelerate death. The Jude —May I ask what is the object of this exa- mination ? Mr. Hill.—All I wish to show is that there were these rumours, and in consequence that there was an investi gation. It is to show that the paragraph was not writ ten without grounds. The Judge—That has nothing to do with this part of the case. lam assuming that he is accused of murder or manslaughter. It has nothing to do with it that he does not ask for an explanation. Mr. Hill—ln opening, I said I could not carry it fur ther than an error of judgment. The Judge—l have not the least desire to check you in it. Go on with it. Two different views may be taken with regard to this evidence. Examination resumed—Mr. Hill—lf there had been effusion of the brain, would you have given this me dicine ? Witness—Certainly not. Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Byles—l approve of Dr. M'Carthy's treatment under the circumstanees. He was prohibited from the use of the best remedy, opium. Supposing there had been effusion of the brain, there was nothing injudicious in the treatment. I have known Dr. Jones several years. Ido not think there is a great difference of opinion at the present day as to the effects of tartar emetic. It is a medicine that has been largely experimented upon, but Ido not know that there have been great discrepancies of opinion upon it. Both among French and English writers 1 believe there have been great controversies as to the action of that medi ciee. I do not know that the modern opinion is that it is not near as active as it was once thought to be. By Mr. Hill—l have never heard of a case in which so much as three-quarters of a grain has been ad ministered, _ _ Mr. Saninel Solly—l am one of the senior surgeons at St. Thomas's Hospital. I have heard the evidence of Mr. Skey, and agree with it in the main. Mr. Sergeant Byles—Are you the author of "Death in the PiPe (A laugh.) Witness—No ; but some ob servations I made in one of my clinical lectures have led to a controversy about smoking. You are of opinion that people die after it. (Laugh tpr.)—Yes, they do. I think it very injurious. I have seen much of the effect of giving 'tartar emetic in cases of deliriura tremens. The term delirium tremens is given, but there aro two different diseases to which that name is given. In one a stimulus should be given, in the other not. If a man is mad drunk it is well to give tartar emetic, but if he has delirium tremens from for mer intoxication that medicine would be injurious. Is such a dose as this too large I—Much too large, es pecially in a case of epilepsy, because you do not wish to produce sickness. Mr. C. W. G. Guthrie—l was one of the surgeons of Westminster Hospital, but resigned in consequence of ill health. I have heard the evidence of Dr. Skey, and agree with it. • An extrtct from the registry of the Tribunal of the First Instance of the Department of the Seine was then put in anc read, consisting of the examination of the plaintiff, which was to the effect ths4t he had attended the deceased for four er five years for delirium t that the deceased was addicted to drunkenne,ll, which produced with him great delirium ; that he had conic tot Paris twice to attend him, and there cured him ; tha Mr. Burdett informed him by telegraph on Wednesday' in the previous week that Mr. Brettell required him im about ter, o'clock, and found the in.. tremens ; im mediately. He was not in London that day, and was that he arrived not able to start till Thursday evening ; a h l a w d a. n y s o t w be i th e n him;to t h tended by Dr M`Carthy ; that he asked him Wl v,at he had only i a d b able ee n to t administered, and had been well satisfied with whai . thir ! physician had prescribed. That knowing the inva;: 4 t e h w at at m er r - . cl ß os r e e t t f te o i r i three days, days, be had prepared s medicine with the remedy which he carried take part, and that he died two hours afterwards of con- gestion of the brain, complicated with a fit of epilepsy, This wts the case for the defence. Mr. Sergeant Byles submitted that there was no evi dence to go to the jury in justificatiop, and the other issues in point of law. After some discussion tho judge overruled the objeo. tion, and the following evidence was then given on the part of the plaintiff : Mr. Edward Heyward examined by Mr. Keene—l formerly held a commission in the 17th Lancers. I knew the late Mr. Brettell. I was on the Lamarche racecourse on the evening of Sunday, the 26th of Octo ber. He came home in his own dog-cart. Besides Mr. Brettell there were myself, Mr. Robert Burdett, and Mr. Brettell's groom in the dog-cart. Mr. Robert Bur dett drove, and I sat beside him, and Mr. Brettell sat behind Mr. Robert Burdett. There was no racing. I recollect the occurrence of the accident. Just before Mr. Brettell had been standing up talking to Mr. Bur dett. I cannot say whether he had resumed his seat. I felt the motion of the dog-cart as if something was off. Mr. Burdett said, Brettell is down. He stopped. I jumped down and ran to where he was lying. I found him lying with his race on the ground. He was perfectly insensible. He had . been driving at the rate of seven miles an hour. With the assistance of his groom, I got him up and loosened his handkerchief. He would weigh about fifteen stone. He had a bruise over the eye. We lifted him into a cab, and I went into the cab with him. He became insensible in the archway, about half a mile from the place of the accident. When be got home he was perfectly sensible, and walked up the stairs without any assistance. Win. Willis examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—l was in the service of the late Mr. Brettell, at Paris, and at banded upon him during his illness. I was constantly with him. I remember Dr. Jones coming. Dr. Wear thy came to see him the same day. I did not see Mr. Brettell vomit, and it is not correct that I fetched a vessel for him to vomit in. Croas-examined by Mr. Hill—l lived with Mr. Bret tell nine years. I am in the service of Mrs. Cunningham now, and here been so since Mr. Brettell's death. I was sent to prove this by Mrs. Cunningham. I remember Dr. Jones giving Mr. Brettell a powder; Mr. Burdett administered it in water. Dr. Jones took it out of a paper with a spoon. By Mr. Sergeant Byles—l do not know whose house it was, whether Mr. Brettell's or Mrs. Cunningham's. Mr. Brettell used to come two or three times a week, and sometime dined there, and entertained his friends there. At one time the O'Gorman Mahon and Clancy were intimate with Mr. Brettell, but they had a quarrel. Examination resumed—That intimacy had ceased in that month. The Burdetta and Mrs. Cunningham had also been intimate with him. The intimacy of the O'Gor man Mahon and Mr. Clancy ceased with Mr. Brettell, and also with the Burdett3 and Mrs. Cunningham. Directions were given to me that the O'Gorman Mahon and Mr. Clancy should not be admitted to the house. Cross•examined by Mr. Hill—The O'Gorman Mahon attended the funeral. He met us at the door. Mr. Bret tell bad been intimate with Mrs. Cunningham all the time I was in his service. Mr. Cunningham, I believe, is in Australia. The O'Gorman Mahon did not attend the funeral. He followed down the Champs Elysees, and forced his way into a carriage, and I believe went away. Dr. W. Jones—l am the plaintiff in this case. lam in my 76th year, and have practised physic 52 years. I knew Mr. Brettell six or seven years. I attended him medically from May or April,lBs4. I have attended him several times for delirium tremens brought on by exces sive drinking, and I have administered tartar emetic always when required. In my judgment that is a proper medicine to administer, and he derived benefit from it almost instantly. I was sent for from Paris, and arrived at Mr. Brettell's house on Friday morning about ten. I asked his friend Mr. Burdett what had been the mat ter, and he told me Mr, Brettell had been thrown from a carriage, coming from Lamarche races on the Sunday afternoon ; that he was taken up insensible, and that after he had become sensible he had always complained of a weight on his head ; that he had sent for Dr. M'Carthy, and that be had washed the blood from him and put him to bed ; that on Monday night he became restless ; that on Tuesday morning he had two fits, and had had a draught administered to him. I learned that that draught contained belladonna. Mr. Burdett told me he had been raving mad all night. I asked Willis when his bowels were last relieved, and he said since the Wednesday, in the bath. I learned afterwards it was Thursday. When I first went into the room he was in a straight waistcoat, and convulsively struggling to get out of bed. I ordered him some toast and water, and then ordered a saline draught, which was always prepared, expecting Dr. M'Carthy to come every minute but he not coming after I had waited half an hour I gave him a draught which I had often given him as a purgative. I had a grain and a half of tartarised antimony in my pocket. I divided it in half and gave it to Mr. Burdett in some water, and he gave it to Mr. Brettell in a saline draught. What I mixed was tartar emetic with white sugar. I went to Mr. Burdett and told him unless the brain was immediately relieved Mr. Brettell's life was not worth an hour's purchase. I desired a postmortem examina tion to be made. I was present at the post mortem ex amination. When the skull cap was removed and the dura mater cut through, there was a quantity of blood coagulated and serous. Had a person been bled and the blood been shaken in a teacup it would have pre sented the same appearance. I have no doubt it was blood from the blow. There was no difference of opi nion between me and Dr. Tardieu. I have no doubt that the cause of his death was the fall from the car riage, which produced extrayasation of blood on the brain. Under these circumstances, in my judgment the medicine I administered was proper. The only chance was to act on the bowels. Dr. M'Carthy agreed with me in that, and if that did not act we agreed to use croton oil. I was never under surveillance and ordered not to quit Paris. I never said to O'Gorman Mahon that the powder was my secret and was a terrible poison. He did not vomit. Cross•examined by Mr. Hill.—Tartar emetic, of course, will produce sickness, if given in doses large enough. I have practised medicine for fifty-two years. I was a general practitioner for forty years. lam not a member of the Apothe caries' Company, or the College of Physicians, nor a graduate of either of the universities. I took out a di ploma from Giessen. I commenced practising before the Apothecaries' Act passed. Mr. Brettell had been under the influence of intoxicating liquors when I administered tartar emetic. I take it in my pocket on occasions. I have frequently used this medicine as a purgative. Why did you not tell Mr. M'Carthy you had used it —Mr. Burdett and I thought him in great danger, and I told Mr. M'Carthy I had given him the usual draught, and my intention was to follow it up with croton oil. I did not tell Mr. M'Carthy, because I did not think of it at the time. I expected Mr. Brettell would die in his next fit, and he did. I first ordered toast and water and a saline draught, and his bowels not being moved, I gave the tartar emetic in another saline draught. Croton oil is the strongest purgative. I did not send out for croton oil. We bad no time. He died in about half an hour. I got there at 10 o'clock, not at 9. The train was not in at 9. I have not stated before that I was in at a quarter . . . past 9. I signed a certificate that he died at seven minutes past 12, and I had taken no steps to get the croton oil. The tartar emetic did not prostrate him. He struggled afterwards. I had never, when I attended him, used the straight waistcoat. I told Dr. M'Carthy that I considered he was in danger from extravasation of blood, and Dr. M'Carthy did not agree with me. Re-examined—There was no appearance of prostration when I saw him. I have regularly attended tlie hospitals, and had the regular education of an English practitioner. Wm. Johnson—l am a staticner, residing in Paris. I remember accompanying Dr. Jones to the office of the Commissary of Police on the 6th Nov. I acted as inter preter. By Mr. Hill—What was stated was put in writing 1 —Yes. Mr. Hill—That is the document I put in. The Judge—lf there is anything ultra, why should we not hear it ? Examination resumed—When we got there Dr. Jones sent in a paper, and the commissary came and said there had been a question as to what had been given to the deceased. Dr. Jones said he wished to leave that even ing, and the commissary said he had no right to detain him, but if he were, he would wait till he had seen the result of the examination. After the investigation, the commissary said to Dr. Jones, "After gaining so great a victory, you ought to be delighted at not having gone away." Dr. Jones said he would not have been absent for 1001.;" and he added, "I suppose I am now at liberty to leave Paris?" and the commissary replied, "Certainly; I never had any reason to say you should not leave." By Mr. Hill—He was asked by the commissary what it was he had given him. Dr. Jones said be could not give it phinly, he could give it in Latin; and the com missary said, "Then I will take it in Latin," and he took the pen and wrote. I did not hear Lim say he had none of the powder left. Mr. R. Partridge—l am Professor of Anatomy at King's College. I have heard the evidence of Dr. Wear thy and the evidence of the plaintiff. From the evidence I have no doubt that the liquid on the brain was blood and serum. I do not think it could be the liquid injected for embalming. Embalming is common in this country in schools of medicine. I have never beard an instance of the embalming liquid appearing on the brain. It fre quently occurs that a person rallies from a concussion of the brain, and then subsequently extravasation of blood ensues and death. In cases of delirium tremens some constitutions could not bear opium. I have no experience in administering tartarlemetic, but it has been so strongly recommended that, failing opium, I should have recourse to it. By Mr. Hill—Do I understand that you would use tartar emetic where you expected there was extravasation on the brain?—No. I should use it to open the bowels in moderatejloses. When e there is extravasation of blood there is always coma some time before death. The coma tose condition is one of the strongest ~symptoms of pres sure on the brain; but they are very like delirium tre mens. They die much in the same way. Dr. H. Letheby—l am professor of chemistry and toxi cology in the London Hospital. The periods vary much between the comatose state and death, according to effu sion. I have heard the evidence, and do not see anything improper under those circumstances in the administration of three-quarters of a. grain of tartar emetic. I have known it given in ten-grain doses, for the purpose of quieting delirium. I have seen the brain moistened with the liquid used for embalming, but chloride of zinc is so distinct from serum that no medical man would be mis taken e, sto which fluid it was. Generally tartar emetic would have a lowering effect • but if it were known that it had been administered before with success, then 1 should say three quarters of a grain was not an improper dose. ‘ilrli.eHwilolutlhdefinrrstepelaied llth u e p i o r n a t t h te e n p ti la on in t t o itrs evidence. facts He concerning was no dispute. It was quite clear that Mr. injury by a fall from his dog-cart, home his consciousness was stairs. The cireu 1 the Friday satu which then, . Brettell receivect and that when he arrived at, restored, and he was able to walk u p stances that occurred between that time au, - morning were also without controversy, and that Jones arrived on the morning of Friday, that he admi, t tn.a, nistered, in the first instance, tcast and water, then what been a fists►,-- he called the usual saline draught which Mr, Bredell he 'doubted 114 was in the habit of taking. It was of importance to re member that this was a seidlitz powder, and that Dr. M'Carthy made a memorandum of it, and it was not till the Tuesday after that he told Dr. M 'earthy what it was he had administered. Another fact which was not con tradicted was that this powder, being administered be twee❑ 9 and 10, Mr. Brettell died at 7 minutes after 12, and that Dr. Jones certified that he died of epilepsy. It was also not controverted that many persons spoke of this matter as one of considerable suspicion, and an order was made for the disinterment of the body that a post mortem examination might take place. Then they found from the proceedings before the Tribunal of the First Instance that Dr. Jones was sent for by the prefect in order that he might give an explanation of what had taken place, and that he was not the party laying the information. The evidence of the O'Gorman Mabon had been laid before them, in which he distinctly stated that he gave the information, and Dr. M'Carthy' said that on the Tuesday after learning that the white powder had been given he immediately went to the commissary of police. Dr. Jones was sent for. It was stated that he desired a post mortem examination, that he ought to leave that evening, but he would attend the orders of justice as to leaving Paris. Tnen they found that after the post mortem examination had taken place Dr. Jones asked if he might then leave Parr, and he was congratulated on the mode in which the inquiry bad ended and told he might leave. Therefore they found these facts, Dr. Jones sent for, his examination taken down iu judicial form, and undertaking that he would attend the orders of justice and after the post mortem examination, he asked for and obtained leave to quit Paris. So much for the points on which there was no controversy. Now, let them see what were the points on which there was a controversy. The O'Gorman Ma hon said he asked Dr. Jones what was the white powder and he replied that was his secret, and that it was a po tent poison. Dr. Jones denied that, but then he was deeply interested in this inquiry. But Dr. M'Carthy said Dr. Jones said to him, " I don't mind telling it to you what it was I gave him." Further, the O'Gorman Mahon said Jones offered to give a certificate that death was caused by concussion of the brain, and that Dr. M'Carthy said he would not join him in it. The Judge—Then you should also state that the O'Gor man Mahon said Dr. M'Carthy refused to join in such certificate, and that Dr. 11I`Carthy said here no such pro posal was ever made to him. Mr. Hill said it was all perfectly consistent with what had been sworn to to-day. Then what further statement in the paragraph was there that was true ? It was true that Dr. Jones finally wrote a prescription of what the white powder was composed. The paragraph added that in the meantime Dr. Jones was ordered not to leave Paris, and that he was under the surveillance of the police. He put it to the jury whether that was not substantially true. According to the plaintiff's own evidence he said he would attend the orders of justice. The Judge—But look a little at the dates. This letter is written after the post mortem examination. Mr. Hill said that was true, but the writer could not know of the conversation which took place in the car riage, after the examination had taken place, when he asked if he might now leave Paris, and the commissary said he might. Suppose they should give a verdict for the plaintiff, the circumstances all tended to show that there was no malice on the part of the defendant. He now came to the medical evidence. Yesterday, when he opened the case, he laboured under this disadvantage, that he did not know his friend's case, but he saw good reason to-day why his friend had not called witnesses before. It was a very great object that Dr. Jones's medical evidence should not be called till after the medi cal evidence for the defendant had been heard. Was this the conduct of a man who desired a full investigation into his case! They had this fact proved, that there were many persons who thought that in cases of delirium tremens tartaric emetic was a desirable medicine when a man was suffering from drunkenness, and it was desirable to produce prostration, but that if it was given after wards it endangered the life of the patient. But he was utterly at a loss to understand Dr. Jones's explanation that he administered the tartar emetic to open the bowels, with a determination to resort to castor oil if the other medicine had not the desired effect, and yet the tartar emetic having no effect he took no steps to get the oil. What was this charge against him ? That he ad ministered a secret medicine, that death followed i❑ two hours, and that he did it without communicating with Dr. DlTarthy, who was attending the invalid at the time. Was it a wonder that there were surmises that this was not all right ? Who was to blame for that ? All that was done by the correspondent of the Daily News was to state these facts ; and, moreover, they were put in the paper just as they were receive', and believing the contents to be true. The Judge—You must not say that, because you could have produced the letter and have not. Mr. Hill said, however, it was the fact that the letter was published on the 10th Nov., and that it professed to be a statement of events which actually did take place on the afternoon of the previous Saturday, and therefore there was no great stretch in asking them to believe that it was not an invention of some person in London, but that the conductors of the paper in London believed it to be a statement of occurrences in Paris. Taking these circumstances into account, was this a libel ? It was now well settled that it was the province of a jury to determine this. It was for the judge to define what was a libel in law, and it was for the jury to say whether the publication came within that class or not. He asked them to take this publication into their hand', to look at it in connection with that which had taken place, giving no undue undue latitude to the newspaper, doing justice to the plaintiff and to the defendant also ; and he asked them, seeing that this was a statement of facts, part of which was correct, and the remainder was so nearly correct that there could be no doubt that this was a bona fide relation of what took place—whether this could be held to be a libel ? Thu next question was, supposing they should find it to be a libel, how far did it reflect upon Dr. Jones. Was it a fact that he administered tartar emetic, and that he kept it a secret ? Was it true that there were rumours that this man bad met with foul play That undoubtedly was true. Then was it also true that the unfortunate man died within two hours after the administration of this white powder It undoubtedly was true. Supposing, however, that they came to a conclusion against the de fendant, what damages should they give ? He asked them to remember that Dr. Jones bad asked for no ex planation ; but the publication appearing on the 10th, had brought his action on the 13th. The defendant made inquiries into the case. They found, and now said, that the publication was true in substance and effect ; but if they should not be with him in this, he submitted that if they did give damages they should be of the lowest possible amount. Mr. Sergeant Byles then replied on the whole case. He said it was true that he had justly fallen under the cen sure of his learned friend, that in opening this case he had made use of only common-place remarks ; because, as a great wit of the last century had stated, every thing that could be said about human manners and human life had been already said. If his learned friend had no other complaint to make against him than that it did not amount to much. What he before said was, that if a man called you a bad fellow you should take no notice of him, but if he said you had committed a murder you should lose no time in bring ing him to a court of justice to make good that imputa tion, or to make him pay those damages which a jury thought ought to be awarded. His learned friend's next .complaint was that there was no letter before action. Now, considering that this libel was a down right charge of murder, which was published on the broad wings of the Daily New to all Europe, and, as his friend reminded him, to America also, but Europe was enough for him, he did not think it was to be won dered at that the writ should have been issued without such notice. There was a law existing' for the protec tion of the defendant, he meant Lord Campbell's Act, which provided that it was competent for the defendant before the action was brought, if he had an opportu nity, or after the action brought. if he had no oppor tunity before to make an apology, and to offer it in evidence before the jury in mitigation of damages. But this defendant had made no apology. On the con trary, he had said "I will come into court and prove that this charge is true." But the statute went further, and provided that in an action brought against a news paper for libel the defendant might plead that it was in serted without malice, but by negligence, and might pay money into court as satisfaction. The defendant, however, bad taken none of these courses • but he said the publication was true in substance and effect ; he did not goon and say, you committed murder, but be proved the truth of immaterial circumstances and left the grave charge of murder open. It was an astute but an uncandid justification, and was intended to enable his learned friend to say, "Although I justify everything, I never justi fied the charge of murder." His learned friend also said that he should ask their verdict on the ground that this publication did not amount to a libel. The learned judge would tell them what was the law ; t would be their province to decide whether this was a libel. His learned friend said the correspondent had only reported certain facts connected with social life in Paris. _ _ The Judge—Matters interesting with regard to public transactions and social life. Mr. Sergeant Byles said with regard to public transactions that was the privilege of the press. If they did not take away his private character, they could say, and did say, whnt they thought fit concerning Lord Palmerston or any one else. It was not likely he ad dressed any one whose private character had been at tacked, but he could tell them that of all the injuries that could be inflicted upon a man, there was nothing that inflicted upon him such exquisite pain as an at tack on his private character. He could not look his children or his relatives in the face, and he had no remedy but an appeal to the law, and if the law pro tected him in his property, and not in his reputation, it did not deserve the name of law. This gentleman, the correspondent of this newspaper, said the plaintiff was stated to have committed murder, but he doubted whether it would turn out so on investigation. He did not even say, " I have been told he has committed murder, but I do not believe it." That there were cer tain reports was no ju-tification at all. The O'Gorman Mahon said there were reports of foul play, and that Mr. Brettell had been murdered. It was clear that a Mr. Clancy andthe O'Gorman Mahon had been intimate with Mr. Brettell, and that they had quarrelled, and this might give some explanation how it wa s tha t this extraordinary statement came to be published in the Daily /Yezes. Mr. Brettell e as a gentleman with an income of from 3,0001. to 4,0001. a year, but, poor fd low, he had to appeal to the O'Gorman Mahon for such assistance as one freemason should give to another in a foreign land, and he took an interest in him because he was a mason. He doubted w hether that was t he true reason. Then that other gentle man Mr. Cl ancy, in the profession of nothing, was there, and there were three other persons about Mr. Brettell—Mr. It Burdett, alio - Mr. Burdett, and Mrs. Cunningham, who had 4 e tt. They were all intimate togethtr end ".tit the society of the O'Gorman Mahon and Mr. Clancy very much contributed to en. liven Mr. Brettell's life. There was a misunderstandiug among them, and the O'Gorman Mahon and Mr. Clancy were forbidden the house. This quarrel broke out shortly before the accident. Mr. Brettell died, and then it turned out that he had left the greater part of his fortune to one of the Burdetts—he meant Mrs. Cunningham. The O'Gorman Mahon could get nothing more out of it, nor could Mr. Clancy, and what did they find these twn gen tlemen did ? They went about Paris saying Mr. Bret tell had been murdered ; that Dr. Jones had been sent for from London by somebody or other about Mr. Bret tell; that he administered to him a white powder, with intent to produce his death, and which did produce it within two hours. This was a charge not merely of man slaughter against Dr. Jones, but of murder. The writer of this libel said, "I will be even with the Burdetts, they have got his money, I will take away their charac ter." And then came the attack on Dr. Jones. It was said that he administered a white powder, and that Mr. Brettell died two hours afterwards. That would be pretty well, but the writ, r went on to say that the circumstances which were considered to call for an explanation on the part of Dr Jones were, that he at first signed a certificates that the deceased had died from epilepsy, that he subse quently stated that he and Dr. M`Carthy were both prepared to certify that concussion of the brain was the cause of death (the fact being that Dr. M`Carthy declines to concur in any such certificate), " that he has on several occasions admitted that the medicine he administered to Mr. Brettell was a most potent one, and that when pressed to say what it was, his only answer That is my secret.' On being interro gated by the commissary of police and asked to produce a specimen of the powder, he said he had none left, but he finally wrote a prescription for making it up." Then in a cowardly way the writer sought to shirk responsi bility by saying, " Although the circumstances call for that thorough investigation which they will receive, I cannot help thinking it will turn out that there has been no wilful poisoning in the case." What he meant to say was it would turn out that there had not been mur der, but that there had been manslaughter. Then came a most scandalous statement, for which there was not the slightest foundation, that in the meantime Dr. Jones had been ordered not to leave Paris, and was under sur veillance. This was the injury which had been com mitted on the plaintiff, and to-day there had been this further injury, that plaintiff bad attempted to justify his charge, and to show that the defendant had not been qualified for his profession. He submitted that there had net been even an error of judgment on the part of the plaintiff, that he did the best he could for Mr. Bret tell, that the various charges against him were false. He asked them was there any justice to be had in Eng land ? When a man was libelled, ought he to have the ample damages which the justice of his case required ? And what, was to measure damages ? The character of the plaintiff, 76 years in the world, with an unblemished character. This libel contained the most fearful impu tation that could possibly be made against a man, Looking at the manner of the publication in the broad sheet of the Daily News—at the opportunity they bad had of apology, which they had not made— he trusted that the jury would find that the libel had been made out to their entire satisfaction, and that they would give the plaintiff ample damage. The learned Judge then proceeded to sum up. After stating the form of the action and the pleadings, he said it was correctly stated at the bar that an anonymous publication which was calculated to bring a person into odium and disgrace was a libel. It was their province to say whether this was a libel or not, and I should ima gine they would have very little difficulty in determining whether it was calculated to bring Dr. Jones into odium and disgrace. This communication purported to be a letter from Paris, and if that communication were writ ten for the purpose of injuring another, it was undoubt edly a libel. It stated that the result of a judicial in' quiry had so far confirmed the grounds for suspicion, that the authorities had thought it right to have the body el' burned, that a post mortem examination had been made by Dr. Tat d.eu, and that the contents of the stomach, the heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two sealed jars, had been taken away to be examined, intimating that the examination was still in progress, and that no fins' opinion was formed of that which took place during the examination. The learned judge then proceeded to rod the remainder of the alleged libel, asking, with regard to the latter portion, that the writer could not help thinking that there been no wilful poisoning in the case, what that meant ? Did it mean that the author suspected some' thing ? It went on to state that in the meantime Pr' Jones was ordered not to leave Paris, and was under sor" veillance. What was the meaning of that ? Was th is statement calculated to bring Dr. Jones into odium an d contempt ? If so, it was a libel. The next question vsage if this was a libel was it true ? With reference to that they had heard quite enough to form a judgment. W ° , ° it true, for instance, that the friends of Mr. Brettell' having suspicions, applied for an investigation ? It ar peared that the O'Gorman Mahon said he went to the procureur imperial ; but beyond that they had the es'i" dence of Mr. M'Carthy that he went to the commissar) of police on behalf of himself and Dr. Jones, for their satisfaction. It wastrue that Dr. Jones administered a white powder, but it was not true Dr. M`Carthy 'sa e asked to certify that the cause of death was concussion of the brain. On the contrary, he said he was neve r asked. It was idle to say that the several parts of this publication were true. Then the next question which arose was the question of damages, and that was a question ea' tirely for the jury. It was said by the counsel for the de fendent that it was the duty of a newspaper like the Daily News to publish all that was interesting with regard to public transactions and social life. In that he could not agree. That the conductors of a newspaper in London should think it their duty to publish the gossip and the scandal of a foreign capital affecting the character of a gentleman in England was to him rather startling. 0° should have thought it their duty to take care, with re gard to publications of the truth or the falsehood of which they were not in a condition to judge, and that thei, would have followed the advice of one of the greatest 0 • 1 our modern poets, not— " To let their pleasure or their pride Give sorrow to the meanest thing that breathes." 2 They toqk the other view of their duty. He was bo ned to say there was no legal view of it. They received t his as foreign news, probably from some person who was known to them ; and, if so, they might afterwards b ao r written for explanations. If it came anonymous') the°lt would be the less excuse for publishing it. It had b ee observed by the counsel for the defendant, that the plat n, tiff was rather hasty in bringing his action, and tha.b, be 0 never called on the defendants for an ap o logy. Oa 1 " other hand it was answered that the statute la : gave considerable assistance to those who w er e . harshly and unjustly attacked, that the cond°3o tors of the publication were allowed to make ute apology and to lay it before a jury, or to pay moneY 1 o . court. That course had not been pursued in this l i t The case was altogether before the jury. They w°_ l3 o a consider whether the publication were a libel, t* .e , whether the truth of it had been proved ; and if t' e / 0 considered it a libel, and that the truth had not be fit proved, they would give such damages as they thong it fair the plaintiff ought to receive. of • The jury then retired, and returned into court in a bo , e 0 ten minutes, with a verdict for the plaintiff, daol a i* 1501. Country Markets. EDINBURGH HAY AND STRAW MARIEET' JUNE 23. Supplies of all kinds these last six days again large• Oat straw, from 8s Od to 104 Od per kemple of 16 stuns Iron; wheat do., 6s 6d to 8s 6d; barley do., 64 Od t ° Od. Hay from is id to ls. 4d. EDINBURGH MEA.L—JuNit 23. There were in the market to•day 13 sacks oatmeal, 05° weighing 2801 b imperial, which sold at 44s Od and DALKEITH MEAL MARKET_JUNE 22. / There were in the market to-day 7 ba gs o f oa tmeal, ° ° barleymeal, and 0 pot barley. Sales dull. Oatmeal, per sack of 2801bs Fi rs t. S econ d. -- mlu.l— o 3 d imperial --el --8 pd Barleymeal, per ditto -s Od — s Od pd Peasemeal, per ditto Flour, new, per ditto —s Od —s Od - - s 01 Pot-barley, new, per ditto —s Od —s Od ---8 DUBLIN, JUNE . Whito wheat, 35s GI to 39s Od ; red ditto, 32s ed to 3 ,1 ! Gd; ditto new, —s; barley, malting, iGs 6d to 25s Gd ; ing, —8 to —s ; oats, old, 13s 6d to 17s; ditto, 3 3 °W,' Od to —s ed ; oatmeal, 158 to 18s Od; here, new, ' l3 190 Od ; rapeseed, —s Od to —s Od per brl ; bakers' floury to 24s Od per cwt; Indian corn, 405 Od to 41s 6 d 480 IT.—.TUNE 24. the close of the market. Virallsend, tic. - 6 Lambton i 6 . 9 Tees .. . , 9 'South Kelloe l l' o Rotten l /. Haswell ....................• Kepler Gr ainge •••••••• 1 5 e 0 Hough Hall 56; 'sold, 38. COAL PiARK. Prices of Coals per ton at s. Haswell Gag 13 6 Bebside's Hartley l6 3 Huddle W. Hartley l6 6 Davison's West Hartley 16 6 Holywell l5 6 ranfield Moor l4 0 Tanueld Moor Butes 14 0 Wylam l5 6 Eden Main l5 6 Ships at market BIRTHS. OF A BON. On the 23d inst., at 11, Arlington-street, St. James's Mrs. Highford Burr. Che rtseP On the 23d inst., at Littleton Rector y , n ear the Hon. Mrs. G. R. Gifford. OF A DAUMITER. .ft On the 23d inst., at Chelsea, the wife of the Itef• H. Davies, incumbent of the Old Church, Chelsea. ~;re, On the 22 d inst,, at Uffor d N or thampton M rs . Artkur William English. MARRIED. aSife ji On the 23d inst., at Wal co t Ch urc h, Bath, hire , T re vor Griffith, Es q ., o f T reva l yn H a ll Denbig h° lo, and late of 23d Royal W e l c h Fu s iliers, to' Helen $ 0 eldest daughter of Rear-Admiral N. Duff. nth' On the 24th inst. Mr. A. G. Franklin, of 1 4 , street, Finsbury, to ' Phebe, youngest daughter of . 4a. ' Harris, of Truro. D lED. On the 24th inst., at 12, Bruton-street, Lord .6. 10 f /11°.1 aged 65. r rci ig LAe- sh On the 22d inst., Thomas Yonnghnsband, NOW Hall, 23, Old Bailey, aged 69. 10 6 On the 20th inst., at Walworth, Mr. Robert Op aged 83. 2.10 LONDON : Printed and Publiab.od by MTJEDO Y° ls 20; of No,, 112, Strand, Printer, at 1714 Sun Offic e P o si 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the ,3aTor, the C. of Middlesex, Thursday, June 25,_15;x7 , ' , ":,11 . 4."'" MON with rac . lerlstic, horning Pert Stall; may Le Pnly :r:kohic-1 hal at the pri RoyAi c.,sl cesi of the L of Forty of th Boulcourt The Lane,rs CASIN PETIIT, SA.TURD after which tl redecorations opening. 11/FIBS TIO: Rill repeat t: GALLERY at 8. Morel] 2 s- Is., Stalls. Leale, and C 0 Y 11. lad M. J . commencing I Madame Rad Aladaune Ca , s strand, Miss llcrr Reicbar, Conti actors—: Admission Is. REM' Prom( 'Concert at C Oriental at 1 nand comma evening. pllow ENGI 11T A.GIIT and ( Photoralvan) Engravings, r has so much 1 world. Mr. I don, and his a be exhibled. l'lronday Bth J Pall-mall Eas Ph otogalvai N.B.—Hen examples'. QECUI HORLE' and Miningßr Securities, pa 3 their business, their capital. Per cent.. and reasonable ter Per cent.) and 01W: WATEI lessees of the the Nassau WATERS an( Bottle is prote Man facturen ICE Al Mire BL at SWEETIN , aide, City. pURSU Chancel Payne, late of dlesex, gentler against lIENfI Who died in or solicitors, on o in and prove tl Itich aril Tori n Middiesex, or from the bene Monday, the the said Cham Claims. Dated this I CHAS. IV. II %] lIRS Chance Panne, forme of Middlesex, county of M CHARLES P.- eaid Edward are, by their E July, 1857, to the Vice Char, buildings, Lim be perempto7il Monday, th( Said chambers, claims. Dated this 1 CIIAS. A N AC Medic Esq., having b, and dimness following the i he considers it Of nervous suf send free, to a ed envelope er Medical work Thomas, Esq., THE SECRE Just publlshe SELF -P on the and on the from vicious 1 to Manhood,' liege in its so remarks on ft mysteries "o Urinary exami Complaint , , NV Matriculated illemer of Apothecaril e le en s s e r n , t B l which have p hood, and pre other class of Particularly their phys'cl] the health, ha entitled. It is absolu Principles of out incurring teed the heyd May he ming and how the e that there is derangement Published May be had Gcrdon, 146, consulted da Bed ford- squa The work Calcutta—M Circulator 01 Colombo. Co; ON PHY INCAPJ New and im Anatomic free by po r r E P. on tl effects of sc quences fror tions of mar Bons. By 20, Warwic and Gordon, The CORI the impaire( n reinvigor bill ty, obstii from venere success in 1 titles in one The CON I:tic remedy the varied f skin, blotch tonsils, and Its action system is u of Ils. PERRY': teal remed;, of the urine Sold by 140, Leade W. Edwar( street; H. Harding, 4, medicine vi ITO FOR, CONSTI LTVER CO' 13 IN , cost in oth conseomenc sion, a cidit hysteria, r the pit of 1 tions of ti dropsy, rhi after eatit general de paralysis, t mory, deli choly, gr best food turns sick good Ilher and reston to the mos ed Profess vey, Dr. C Stuart de other welt this useful in vain fa Analysis 1 " I her( Arabica I some, ea& stomach a tion), con The C Du Ilarry Bi%:eqty 1 5wt.1.1 , 1 qaatity, 1 tern are Barry Dr Maion, ai 60, Grace ornhlll; B sker-at,