The Sun.
London, England, 1839-11-29 00:00:00

QUEEN ADELAIDE HOSPITAL.

The investigation into the complaints made by Wil-
liam Gellard, on Saturday last, at Marlborough-street
Police-office, took place yesterday before Mr. Dyer.
William Gellard came forward, and told Mr. Dyer
that he was ready with his witnesses to substantiate
every word he had uttered on the former occasion, but
there were no persons on behalf of the Hospital then
in Court.

A message was then sent to the Directors of the
Hospital that the Magistrate was waiting to hear the
explanation. In a few minutes the following gentlemen
arrived :—Dr. Sigmond, Lieut.-Col. Findlay, Mr.
Bloxam, Dr. Andrews, Mr. Black, Dr. Isill, Mr. Barnes,
Mr. Garratt, and Mr. Smith.

The complainant made his statement, which was in
substance the same as appeared in this journal of
Monday.
Dr. Sigmond, in reply, said the Committee were,
of course, anxious to do their duty towards the public,
and to promote the comfort and safety of those patients
committed to their charge. No institution was con-
ducted with greater feeling, or was more worthy of
public support, than the Queen Adelaide Hospital. In
answer to the charges, he would refer to a written
statement, extracted from the investigations of the Com-
mittee. Dr. Sigmond then proceeded to read the par-
ticulars of the admission of the complainant's wife.
She was taken into the hospital in June, without any fee.
Complainant—l paid three shillings.
Dr. Sigmond—No, the Committee have abolished all
fees.

Complainant—l paid three shillings in advance, other-
wise my wife would not have been admitted.
A Committee-man suggested that the sum was taken
for washing. _ _ _

Mr. Dyer told the complainant he ought to give
things their right names, and not call that an admission-
fee, which was merely a charge to cover a necessary
expense. _

Complainant—l was justified in considering it as a
fee ; for when I went for the clothes and received a few
back, I was told there was a bill of 2s. Bd. due to the
washerwoman.

Dr. Sigmond continued---The deceased on the 12th
September was delivered of twins, one still-born. Every
possible attention was paid to her. Dr. Andrews and
the House Surgeon were unremitting in their attend-
ance. Inflammation shortly afterwards occurred, in
consequence of some one giving her gin, which she
drank beneath the bed-clothes. She died three weeks
after her delivery on Saturday night. The child also
died before the mother. The mother told the matron
she was unable from destitution to bury the child.
On the death of the mother the Secretary imme
diately sent to where the complainant had given
his address, and the answer returned was
that no such person was known there. The
post mortent examination was deferred for three days.
The child was removed, as was customary where bodies
were unclaimed. When the relations came for it, the
body was given to them. The husband came, and after-
wards sent the undertaker ; and the body was not re-
moved from the hospital for eight days. The bodies
were delivered up without mutilation. The matron was
r adyto make oath that all thearticles
clothes lzvthhicesh it w
were
ereturnednecessary
tora r) to
the
husband, husband,, except a few
bushrne.d
hTyhtehommotahterronwwhiiltehinarthtii
ecehsosopiftaal,pphaardelb, eaeondftuhro-
oionly property in the hospital belonging to the deceased
w shawl. When the Committee received Gellard's
letterasa
they came to this resolution—Resolved that there
is no foundation for the statements of Wiiliam Gellard,
and the Secretary is authorized to inform him of the
opinion of the Committee. There was proof in existence
that the deceased expressed herself quite satisfied with
the treatment she had experienced since her admission
into the hospital.
The complainant declared that the statement read by
Dr. Sigmond was made up entirely of falsehoods. It
was not true that the porter had called at his house to
state the death of his wife and child. It was not true
that the clothes had been returned ; and with respect
to the state in which his wife was placed in her coffin,
the undertaker would be able to speak as to that fact.
It was likewise not true that his wife bad been allowed
to remain so many days in the hospital.
After some evidence had been heard,
Mr. Dyer said ho should confine himse:f to the ques-
tion of the detention of the clothes.

The Solicitor said some one ought to be responsible
for the safety of the patients' property.
Mr. Dyer said he experienced the original difficulty
of not be able to make out a jurisdiction. Before be
issued a summons he ought to have a specification both
of the property and the liability of some one party. The
complainant was unable to afford the requisite proof,
and his application must of necessity fail.
The solicitor said all the trouble might have been
spared had the Committee chosen to give proper atten-
tion to the complaints of his client.
Dr. Sigmund sad the institution laid claim to public
support only so long as it was conducted in a useful and
proper manner. The very great utility of the establish-
ment would be manifest on the slightest inquiry.
As nothing further could be done, the complainant
and the Committee left the Court.