The Express.
London, England, 1866-06-18 00:00:00

EXPRESS, MONDAY EVENING, JUNE

*parting Entettigente.

THE HAMPSHIRE WEE
GK AND CURRENT
MEWIN&

TO THI IDITOR OF TEI warns.
SlK,—Disappointment awaited all who braved
the inconveniences that attend the assisting at a Stock-
bridge Meeting, with an idea of seeing a Student, Lord
Lyon, or Rustic turn up for the Derby of 11467. The
" first appearances" made were anything but startling,
Cerf Volant, Undo, Distin, and Sir Oliver, one and all de-
clining to show for the rich stakes in which they were en.
gaged, whilst Ailesbury and Julius only came out to suffer
desent. Hence our old acquaintances Viridis, Hermit,
and Marksman won every prize worth having, with the
exception of the Mottisfont, which a French fill by
Fitz-Gladiator—Comtesae, called Nemea, for
Count Lagrange. She was the only youngster
that was successful at the meeting. and the performance
was not a grand one, seeing what Viritlis afterwards did
with Prodigal when meeting him on 241 b worse terms than
Nemda did. The improvement displayed by Viridis was
one of the sensations of the week, her form being very dif-
ferent to that in the Fernhill at Ascot, when she was
beaten so far from Hippie and Friponnier ; but she has all
the appearance of doing even greater things yet, and can
well take her plebe alongside Achievement and Hippie
now, Hermit having met her under great advantages on
Wednesday. Marksman for the first time ran up to the
great trial he won at home before he figured at Northamp-
ton, the seven furlongs cup, wherein he carried • 12115
penalty, being a very easy task for him, despite of the spin
he had only two hours previously with Seville, on whom
all Danebury was so sweet. Whether he is equal to
The Palmer or Hermit (the best Derby form out as yeti
is an open question still, Mr. Merry having declined to
pit him against the latter for the Troy, wherein The Pal-
mer also staying at home, there was only the fresh comers
for the Biennial winner to beat. The champions of this
body were Ailesbury and Julius, both too backward to com-
pete with the great guns yet, though when the last-named
is thoroughly fit to run he may even turn the tables on
Hermit, who beat him far easier than he did Vauban,
another of the " improvers " she meeting brought to light,
and one the Danebury people will find very useful where-
with to measure Uncas and others by. Apart from the
2-yr-old racing, the doings at Stockbridge were particu-
larly slow, plate after plate being served up until people
were heartily sickened with the whole business, and. there
were at least half a dozen too many races on Thursday and
Friday. What made matters worse was the way in which
the last day's card was " worked," as if expressly to keep
people in the neighbouring towns all night, and those
cockneys who waited for the Hurstbourne Cup did not reach
London until one o'clock on Saturday morning, the 70 mile
journey per rail having occupied about fivehours. Naturally,
there was not a little grumbling after this at the arrange-
ments of the railway company as well as the racing autho-
rities, and backers had such a frightful dressing over their
week's speculations altogether, that many vowed never
more to go through the horrors of " The Hampshire week."
The Northumberland Plate and betting on the Goodwood
Stakes will have to keep the talent employed till the New-
market July week, both events exciting more attention
than they did last year. The public have already "ssif-
fered" materially over the Newcastle race, nearly all the
early favourites turning out but "money horses," and the
shifty l'rimate and steady Honesty being about the best
•` goods" to deal in now. A wretched lot is left in the
Goodwood Stakes, which s third-rate three-year-old
capable of galloping two miles and a half can win,
and if the partisans of Othello and the brother
to Guerilla, both bred to stay, only fancy them on
the day, there will be nothing better worth standing, un-
less Woodyeates can back the colt by Peppermint out of
Celebrity, that won his race at Stockbridge so easily. The
once famous Liverpool Cup has quite gone out of fashion,
for though it is set for Wednesday next, the second day of
the Liverpool Summer Meeting, the subject is almost a
stranger in betting circles. And yet there is a better clams
of horses engaged than in the Northumberland Plate,
Terror appearing of fair quality after what Lucifer—
whom he ran so close at Chester—did at Ascot, whilst
there are many that are thought good enough to give him
considerable weight. If, however, his heart is only in the
right place, he will prove a Terror to all his opponents, as
Vespasian must be a better horse than Mr. Pitt to ooneede
him the 16lb required, and I know of nothing else likely
to thwart him, unless the ground should be soft enough
for Pintail who is much improved since she beat Hollyfox
at Ascot Spring. On the first day we have two " sprint"
handicaps, one of them, the Molyneux Cup, being almost
at the mercy of Windham, who is quite as much at home
over six furlongs as two miles, and only in his absence can
Mr. Johnstone hope to win with one of his trio, the best
of which must 'ware Sundeelah. The Flying Handicap,
half a mile, should fall to the share of Flying Jib again,
or Venturesome ; and the three-year old Selim might beat
both Cathedral and Moulsey for the Queen's Plate. Good
entries were obtained for both the two-yr-old races ; but
I can only fancy Clarice for the Great Lancashire Produce
Stakes, and Arundel for the Craven Biennial (with a run),
and if Mr. Mackenzie should send the Dean for the Bod-
minion (second day), it will not be worth while for any-
thing moderate to oppose him. The only other item in
a condition to receive attention is the Liverpool St. Larger,
which, like the Cup, ham lost all its attractions, and has
nothing better than the colt by King Tom—Darling's dam
engaged in it.
Chelmsford and Ipswich are only holiday meetings, and
the programmes contain so few completed events, that very
few words will suffice for them. The Chelmsford Handi-
cap the Celerity colt could win, Mr. Ten Broeck being the
most likely to do the trick in his absence with The Star, or
Forester, only one of which may accept, and Sweet Home
looks almost as good a thing for the Great Beddow and
Nursery Stakes as Chignon does for the Rendlesham Stakes
at Ipswich, whereto Peeress should travel for the Great
Suffolk Handicap.—l am, Sic., METEOR.

BETTING IN LONDON.—Servarva.
LIVERPOOL Cl' P.
6to 1 agst Terror •t; I 6to 1 agst Pintail 3)
7 to I sgst veitmtaisz ',off',
NORTHI'3IBRRLAND PLATT,.
4to 1 agst The Primate ~t, 10 to 1 agst Honesty 3)
I to 1 Windham t) 12 to 1 Caithness far)
10 to 1 Red Earl (ti 1! to 1 Zenobia 'oir)
10 to 1 Miss Haworth ft' PO to 1 Any other
- ----

GOODWOOI
10 to 1 Llt The Special :Ce-
lerity colt:
10 to 1 :Su ;t)

STAKES.
11 to 1 egst Otbello (t)
12 to 1 Lucifer 3)
12 to 1 Rama (t)

BEITTNO AT MANCHESTER.--Sesuaney.
LIVERPOOL CUP.
7 to 2 apt Terror It t to 1 agst Pintail (t k oft
7to 1 Veapiudaa. t) I
NORTHUMBERLAND PLATE.
I to 1 agst The Prlinate t) 9 to 1 apt Mho Haworth(t)
to 1 Windham 'll 10 14 1 Zeoobia
8 to 1 Red Earl ;off)
GOODNVOOD STAKES.
10 to 1 apt The Special ;Celerity colt; (t)

tab) 3Enterngence.

hiNTROPOLLTAIt cotrxr, cotrats.
(SWABS deo eppateted toe the present ek.)
mascara, letarylebonaeoad.—Tuaday, Jaw we
; Widnes-

day,_2o ; Friday, n.
WANDSWORTH, South-etreat. —Tosiday, June 19.
CMlBLnawm.l., Dlincsul4ol2ace.—Tusodsy, June 19 ; Wednes-
day, 20 ; Thursday, 21.
Buoimrren, old4treetread.—Tuesday, June 19:
fluxa-
daßow, Bow-road.—Friday, Juno E.
WHITECHAPEL, Great Presectstreet —Wednesday, June 20*;
Thursday, 21 : Friday, 21.
lacUlnimaK, liwan-str est—Tuesday, June 19; Thursday, T 1
Friday, 22.
LAMBILTH, Camberwell Newrosd.—Tueliday, Jane 19.
GRRENWINIA—Wednesday. June 20.
WOOLWloll.—Thursday, June 21.
Cur OF Loinxiii, Guildhall-bulldhiga—Tuesday, June 19;
Thursday, 21.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.—JuNE 16.
After term Nisi Prinz sittings at Westminster.—(Before
the Lord Chief Justice and Special Juries.)
NON-ATTENDANCE OF SPECIAL JURYMEN.
Several special jurymen were fined 10/. each for non-
attendance.
The Lord Chief Justice said he would take that oppor-
tunity of stating that a practice was daily growing up of
special jurymen sending him private letters with certifi-
cates. He wished it to he generally understood that he
could accept no excuse for non-attendance except it was
made in open court. He must impose the fines notwith-
standing he had received such letters.

PERIONOWEIEI V. FREEMAN AND ANOTHER.
This was a very extraordinary and peculiar action
against the defendants assurgeons, for negligently per-
forming an operation, by which the plaintiff was injured.
The defendants pleaded first, not guilty, and secondly,
that they were not retained or employedby the plaintiff.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Prentice were counsel
for the plaintiff ; Mr. Coleridge, Q.C., and Sir G. Hony-
man were counsel for the defendants.
The plaintiff is a Pole, earning his living as a journey-
man tailor, and residing in Wardour-street, Soho. The
defendant, Mr. Freeman, is the house surgeon at St.
George's Hospital, and Mr. Holmes, the other defendant,
is a surgeon in Queen-street, May-fair, and one of the
surgeons of the hospital, and was at the time acting
as surgeon at the same hospital for Dr. Taylor, who was
absent from illness. The plaintiff had been suffering from
a painful disorder, and had been an inmate of the Dutch
hospital. After that his wife, who is an Englishwoman,
obtained an admission for him into St. George's Hermits'
on the 3rd of May, 1865. It was found necessary to per-
form an operation on the plaintiff on the Bth, and accord-
ingly a hot or steam bath was prepared for him previous to
the operation. He went into the room, where he found
two kettles of boiliug water on the fire. The water was
poured into a stool or chair, and he was re-
quested to sit on it; but he refused, on ac-
count of the beat. It, however, was insisted on,
and the two female nurses (plaintiff being a alight man)
caught him by the arms and legs and sat him down, and
forcibly kept him there for a quarter of an hour. His
sufferings were the most excruciating, and the flesh and
skin came off. The two defendants were in the room at
the time, and also in an adjoining room, and in consequence
of his screams and howls Dr. Holmes ordered the door to
be locked and the windows closed. The plaintiff also coin-
plained that he was left in that state from 2 o'clock until
half-past nine without any doctor or nurse visiting him, and
that he was not properly attended to afterwards, being left
to do the best he could, with the assistance of a fellow
patient. There were two nurses and eight patients in the
room at the time. His hand was also scalded. Plaintiffs
wife afterwards called at the hospital, and in the coure
of the conversation she had with Dr. Freeman he said it
was by the will of God that her husband was burnt. She
described the wounds as • quarter of a yard long. Evi-
dence was also given to show that the injuries complained
of interfered with the plaintiff's getting his living as a
tailor, and that the doctors had nothing to do with giving
a patient a bath, but the nurses. Plaintiff was unable to
speak English, and but imperfectly knew what was said to
him in English.
At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, Mr. Coleridge
submitted there was no case. The defendants not having
acted for hire or reward were not liable, and, further,
the defendants could not be jointly proceeded against.
The learned judge said he would not stop the case, but
reserve both points.
Mr. Coleridge, in addressing the jury for the defendants,
sail he was not there to deny that the plaintiff had been
scalded ; but the question was whether they were liable
for the negligence of the nurses (one of whom had been
discharged) employed by the hospital and not by the sur-
geons. Where, therefore, unpaid surgeons of an hospital
liable for the conduct of others? Ho did not deny that
the plaintiff bed been injured, but his remedy was
not against the defendants, but those who employed the
nurses. The defendants' case was that they, as unpaid
surgeons, had given the necessary directions for this man
to have a bath by the time they returned to enable them
to operate, but they had nothing to do with carrying it
out. It was not because the nurses acted contrary to their
directions, or in an improper manner, that the surgeons
wore to be answerable. He should show that the
plaintiff had exaggerated his injuries, and that
the defendants were not in the room when the
injuries were inflicted. The man had been treated
with every kindness by the defendants. The learned
counsel said the hospital ought to be ashamed of them-
selves for not making compensation to this man,
instead of allowing the defendants to be proceeded against.
Evidence was then given which completely negatived
the plaintiff's case with reference to the defendants' con-
duct. All that was required was that the patient should
sit over and not in hot water.
Mr. Holmes deposed that after the plaintiff came off the
bath he found him lying on his bed on his side, but he
made no complaint, and he was not aware then that the
plaintiff had been stalled; nor was there any trace of it
when he examined him. He never saw the plaintiff again
as • patient, because Mr. Tatham resumed his duties the
following day. He was not aware of his own knowledge
that the plaintiff was scalded. He did Dot hear screams
from the plaintiff. He gave no orders for the door to be
locked and the windows to be closed on account of the
screams. It must have been excessive heat to produce the
injury complained of ; the skin was not off. He must
have heard it if the man had screamed.
Mr. Freeman, the other defendant, gave corroborative
evidence, and denied the expression attributed to him by
the plaintiff's wife. He told the wife it was his wish that
the matter should be inquired into, and that she had
better write to, or come and see the board of governors;
he and Mr. Holmes did not see the plaintiff put upon the
water or whilst he was on it. The plaintiff could not have
touched the water ; he was injured by the steam.
Other evidence of a similar character was given to show
that no groans were heard, or that the defendants were
present at the time the man was put over the water.
Mr. Pagett, of St. Bartholomew's, said it was the uni-
versal practice in hospitals for the nurses to prepare these
baths and place the patients on them ; the skin from such
a bath of bath, if scalded by steam, would not come off for
some days ; redness and blister would come first ; there
could be no doubt the man had been considerably burned
on one side ; the pain must have been great ; from the
line of scars the plaintiff was actually burnt by the earthen
vessel which contained the boiling water, and not by the
steam or water.
Mr. Curling, of the London Hospital, said this was the
usual course of practice ; it was very unusual for such an
accident to occur.
The Lord Chief Justice said if the jury believed the de-
fendants did no more than follow the usual practice, they
were not liable.
Mr. Huddleston said if the injury happened from the
negligence of the nurses in the defendants' presence, and
they did not interfere to prevent it, the defendant' would
be liable.
The ease then went to the jury on that point, the
defendants contending that plaintiff had exaggerated his
case.
The jury ultimately returned a verdict for the defend-
ants, but expressed an opinion that the plaintiff had been
07 badly used.
.ere