The Express.
London, England, 1853-06-23 00:00:00

meet the Titania at the to:them:mg regatta at Loncdoft.

- -
MELANCHOLY EVENT.—The lter. John Mayor.
MD., of Lincoln College, Oafecd, and eon of the celebrated
Dr. Mayor, author of the "Spelling Book," sod many other
popular warrior, wat found dead, tin Sunday afternoon, in
his cell ow the debtors' side of the Oxford county gaol. An
inquest was held on the body vest tday aiteraooa by Mr.
Bremner, when it appeared that demoted had been confined
in this gaol f r debt for upwards of nine years; that he re-
fused to receive the gaol allowance of food, and subsisted
entirely on the bounty of his (rim's, who subscribed sums
of money, which were doled out to him to procure what was
necessary. lle hail for a long time laboured under Mime,
but ievariably related to se-, the medical attendant at the
gaol, and has otesseonally ri fused to touch any food for two
or three der. toeether. Ile medical iiticer, Mr Wood,
stated his belief that the deceased di,d from having fainted,
not having tile power of resuscitation, owing to hi. being as
reduced by obstinate abdinence. The deceased formerly
held • living in Ewa worth about 3.10 f. per annum, but
it wee uquestered about 10 years ago to pay his debts, and
had he lived until October next it would have been cleared
and re•tored to him

NEN% i•vs.v AND PROVIDENT
h TWIT.- At especial meeting of the committee, eon.
Wei d on the 15th inst., in cons, quence of the death of their
late worthy and highly eetcemed- president, James Harmer,
Esq., it was unaninsouely risolved to record on their
minutes That the committee most deeply deplore the
loss the institution has unstained by this event, recollecting
as they do moat gratefully, that throughout the whole period
of the society's existence, Mr. Harmer had not only been
its patron in use, but had most liberally contributed to
its lamb—bad always lowa willing personally to oosatensace
sad ea/warp its saemben, and by his efforts had been the
inesaoe is a peat ssesaare, of eaabliag the lastitatios to
Mara its moat gailion la public esseen."

Law interitaencr.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—YEsrEnDAT.
NITIMie AT Ifni /U PRILN-1111.11i I.OItD CAVVRIV.t. ••• • PM .•1
Jras.

FENNELL V. AMON (CLERIL)I7SLANDEIt.

This was an action for slander. The pleas were, not
guilty and a justification as to part. Mr. Chambers, Q.C.,
Mr. erjeent Wiikins, and Mr. Petersdorf appeared fur the
plaintiff; the Attorney. General, Mr. Bramwell, Q.C., and
Mr. Hall were for the defence.
Mr. Chambers said that this action was brought by the
plaint If, a surgeon at Wimbledon, to recover damages fur
certain slanderous woe's uttered by the defendant, a sur-
geon of experience and medical officer of a charitable insti.
tution called the " Maternal Society," of which the wife of
the Rev. Adams, the defendant, was the treasurer. The
words complained of were to the effect that the plaintiff
had, in many cases, been vire negligent in his at:endance
upon various females, and that several children bad been,
through such neglect, strangled in their birth. The learned
gentleman then called various witnesses in support of this
Edward Fennell, the plaintiff'. was first called. He said
—1 am a sufgeon, practising at Wimbledon. lam pupil of
Dr. Stevenson. lu 1634 I purchased from Dr. Wright hi.
practice fur EGOOL I was afterwards appointed surgeon to
the Kingston Union and the Maternal Society. In 1849 I
received a letter (ruin the lion. Mrs. Asame, the treasurer
of the society. The letter cmitained general complaints of
neglect. I called upon her, and she instanced the care of
Mrs. Gregory, whom I attended in her confinement in
1848 or ISM This Mrs. Gregory hail an attack of puer-
peral fever' the must severe complaint with which we have
to deal. I felt it my duty to call in Mr. Parrott, a surgeon,
who coincided with me in the course of treatment. She
sunk under the complaint. There have been 38.5 cases of
midwifery under my charge, and 1 have never lost any
other patient than Mrs. Gregory. In January, 1853, Mrs.
Adams withheld my fee for attending Mrs. Elsley, the
wife of a labourer. I wrote to Mrs. Adams for an eaplana.
don, and she referred me to a regulation of the
institution, that no fee should be paid unless the
eurgevu attended in person. I attended Mrs. las-
hy in her confinements. 1 went imrrediately to her.
%hen I arrived at Mrs. Elsley's, finding her case was not
pressing, I left and went to Mr. Hoy's, where I was
attending a little girl very seriously ill. Mr. Roy's house
la in sight of Elaley's. In twenty five minutes I returned
ea Mel. Elatey'm and fund the child born. I did what
was weeeseary. I never bed a child strangled in its birth.
I have bad cases of flowing of blood, but never lost a
ease.

1 had no recollection of the time I ar
rived at Bailey's. I don't recollect the nurse saying, " I
hope you are not going to lease me alone, as you did be-
fore.' When 1 returned, I had only to remove the pla-
centa. I attended Caroline Chester upon two oecasiovs. I
can't recollect whether on the first occasion I was present
at the childbirth. I did remove the placenta. Oa the
second occasion I was present at the birth, but
slid not remove the placenta, hav4ng another
patient who had a prior claim upon me. They called me
up next morning at five o'clock, and told me the
woman was suffering. I gave her something, and about
nine o'clock removed the placenta. I attended Ann Dos-
sett. 1 don't recollect the case, it occurred eight years
ago. I attended Sarah Nicholls. I lived within a few
minutes' walk of her house. At the moment I was sum•
maned the child was born. I don't recollect her asking me
bow I could treat her so. I attended Elizabeth Phipps,
when I was obliged to leave to attend a Mrs. Lambert, who
was in labour. I attended Mrs. Final) in 1852, and did not
have her without saying where I was to be found. The
child was born while I ran home for some medicine. I at-
Ilefisteel Mrs. Risley in 1852. She was delivered in my ab-
eaml but I do not recollect telling her to say nothing
about it. It was my habit occasionally to assist pour per-
sons; but I did not give her money to say nothing
about it.
The witness was then examined upon very many other
cases, the facts relating to which differed in no material
way from those above stated.
la his re•esaminatioo, Mr. Fennell explained the various
professional entreee meats which had prevented him from
attending at the precis time at which the birth had taken
place in various cases.
Mrs. M. E. Savory said—l reside at Wimbledon. My
aunt is .1 subscriber to the Maternal Society, a meeting of
which I attended on the 15th February. I saw Mrs.
Adams and several other ladies. The meeting was ad-
journed to the 17th. At this meeting the defendant took
the chair, and produced a printed statement relating to
Mr. Fennell, A lady proposed that the persons mentioned
in the statement should be sent for. The defendant did
not think that she would consider it necessary when she
heard the statement. Ile then read the document, and
mode comments upon it. The defendant said that there
MI ken gross neglect on Mr. Fennell's part in several
in two cases children had died, being, in fact,
ammilly strangled. and that there bad been constant com-
plies of Mr. Fennell's treatment. A resolution was
pseud that the medical officer should be present at the
time of birth.
Cross-examined—l am a friend of Mr. Fennell. I did
not write down the words used a month after the meeting.
The Rev. Mr. Beginner, the former curate of the parish,
stated that his wife was formerly treasurer of this rociety,
but that he bought of attending the meetings.
Mr. Bartropp, the clerk to the Kingston Union, stated
that he had never head any complaint against Mr.
Fennell.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case,
The Attorney-General submitted that the slanderous
words formed part of a privileged communication ; but
Lord Campbell over-ruled this.
The Attorney-General then addressed the jury for the
defendant. Ile called their attention to the position which
that gentleman held in his parish, and the natural anxiety
which that position cast upon him in regard to all matters
connected wi.h the pour. His wife, in her position of trea-
t the Maternal Society, having heard complaints
against Mr. Fennell, a correspondence took place, the up-
shot of which was the words in respect of which this action
was bought. The defendant bad merely attended the
meeting as adviser to his wife, and had only acted in a bona
fide manner.
Upon the part of the defendant, a great number of
women were called, who proved that the plaintiff was
absent w' en they were delivered. Drs. Arnett and Mur-
phy were also called, and stated that, as a general role, a
surgeon should, i• cases of midwifery, remain in attendance
until the removal of the placenta.
The defendant was also called, and stated that he was in
the habit of taking the chair at all the charitable institutions
of the town. The meeting at which the words in question
were used was called by Mr. Adams, at the desire of various
subscribers, to inquire into complaints against Mr. Fennell.
On taking the chair, he said he was not partial to taking
the chair on such an occasion, but that, as chairman of all
the local charities, he supposed he would be expected to do
so on that occasion. No objection was made to his doing
so. He did not say • word about children being strangled
i• tit* birth.
Mrs. Holroyd, the wife of Mr. Commissioner Holroyd,
who was present at the meeting as • subscriber to the
society, corroborated the evidence of the last witEess, as to
his not having said any tbiog about children being strangled.
Mr. M. Chambers replied.
Lord Campbell, in summing up, regretted that a dispute
upon such paltry gruunds had occurred between the parties
to tie present cause. Many cases bad been mentioned, but
none of them seemed to show any great amount of careless-
ness on the part of the plaintiff. Gcneially :he plaintiff
appeared to have acted kindly to those under his charge.
There was another is:ue. however, which involved the
question whether or not this was a privileged communica-
tion. It was for the jury to consider upon the evidence
whether the defendant entered and took part in the meet-
ing of the Maternal S.ciety from any malice against Mr.
Fennell, or whether he merely attended in a bona fide
manner to give his aid and advice upon the question before
the meeting. If this latter weer the case, then the com-
munication was privileged, and the present action would
nut lie. The case re►ted upon the evidence, which had
been given with great fairness and candour upon both sides.
The jury, after • short &lib, ration, found that the de-
fendant was not guilty, upon the plea that this was a privi-
leged communication; they also found that ho had not
made out his plea of justification.
Lord t'smnb 11 entirely concurred in this verdict, and
said that both parties would leave the court with their
characters re-established.