The Sun.
London, England, 1849-04-14 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.—(THIS D A Y.)
OLD COU 7
(Before Mr. Baron PLATT and Mr. Justice Wit.u.tms.)
Mn. CLITT.—The trial of Mr. Cutt or Lrgvry WV./
fixed for Monday.
TRIAL OF MR. DROUET FOR 14.1.1N-
SLAUGHTER.

At ten o'clock thts---prisoncr entered the do k, and the
trial WES resumed by MT. CITAMBERS calling
Ksziah Deamant, the under matron of th 3 Holborn
Union—She :aid she remembered going to the Royal
Free Honpital on the sth of January, and re_loiving 150
children, amongst whom was the deceasel Andrews,
who were conveyed back to the union. On the corning
of the 6th she saw the deceased in the hos2it,l. Mr.
Whitfield, the surgeon, was attending him. He was
Much exhausted, and appeared to be dying. He died
soon afterwards, about eleven o'clock in the morning.
She examined the children when they came from the
hospital.
Mr. CHAMRERS—In what state were tiny?
Sir F. THESIGER objected to the question.
Mr. CHAMBERS asked the witness when she had sun
the children before?—The witness replied that she br.cl
seen them a few months before.

Mr. CHAMBERS then repeated Cc ob.;ectionable ques-
tion, and
Sir FREDERICK TIIESIGER again objected. What had
the state of the other children to do with the s'ate of
the deceased children? They might have been treated
differently from the deceased, Andrews. No evidence
had yet been adduced to prove the mode of treatment.
Mr. Baron PLATT apprehended that the question did
not go to the treatment, but rather went to show what
state of health the children were in when they were sent
to Mr. Drouet's, and when they returned to the union.
Mr. BALLANTINR contended that if their Lordships
admitted this evidence it would open up a variety of
cases which ought to be the subject of distinct indict-
ments. Before the evidence could be received their
Lordships must prove a perfect identity between the
state of health of the deceased and the children to whom
his Learned Friend had referred. In fact, he must lay
down this broad principle, that before this question
could be put to the witness, it must be shown beyond all
doubt that the constitution and condition of those chil-
dren were precisely the same as that of the deceased.
Mr. Baron PLATT ruled that the question could be put.
Mr. CHAMBERS—Now, did you examine some of the
children when they came from the Royal Free Hospital?
Witness—l did.

Mr. CHAMBERS—In what state did you find them ?
Witness—They were covered with blotches and erup-
tions.
Mr. Baron PLATT—What has this to do with the
case. Suppose they were all affected with itch, how
oould that bear upon this case. It is not alleged that
the deceased died of that complaint, or that it was caused
by the treatment of the defendant.
Mr. CHAMBERS begged his Lordship's pardon ; the
indictment charged the defendant- with confining the
deceased in a room impregnated with an unwholesome
atmosphere, and treating him in such a manner which
ultimately produced the illness which caused the death.
Mr. Justice %I/mums—Just so, and you are to prove
that the treatment engendered the disease which caused
the death.

MT. CHAMBERS must, hOWIRTer, insist that he had a
tight to show that the treatment affected the children in
different manners.

Mr. Baron PLATT—You say then that the same im-
proper treatment may produce various consequences
upon different people.
Mr. CHAMBERS.—Just so, my Lord.
Mr. BARON PLATT—And you insist that a medical
Man can trace all these various consequences to the same
criminal treatment of the defendant, which, the indict-
ment alleges, resulted in the death of the deceased ?
Mr. CHAMBERS said, that it was so ; and, in order to
show the necessity of admitting such evidence as this,
he would just put a case as an illustration :—Suppose a
man was charged with firing a pistol, loaded with ball,
at an individual, with intent to do some grievous bodily
harm, and the man pleaded that the pistol was not loaded,
surely he would have a right to call a third party whom
the bullet had struck, to show that it was ?
Sir FREDERICK 'EUESIGEn replied, that before the
evidence proposed to be put in could possibly be adms-
aible, it must be shown that the treatment of these child-
ren had product ti the same effects upon them that it was
alleged to have done on the deceased. The deceased
had died of a mortal disease, and before the treatment
of the other children could be admitted against the
defendant, it must be shown that they had been attacked
by the same disease.
Mr. Baron PLATT—Suppose the case of a surgeon
being indicted for causing the death of an individual,
by a negligent amputation in this way : he amputates
the limb of one party, but before operating upon the
second, he neglects to cleanse the knife, and Same virus
or poison remains upon it, which causes the death of
the second. Surely, it a third party had Le en operated
upon with the same knife, but without producing death
in his case, would not the effect the poison had upon
him be evidence against the surgeon in the second case?
Sir F. THESIGER said, in the case put by his Lord-
ship there was that identity of the effects which did not
exist in this case.

The COURT ruled that the evidence was admissible.
Examination continued—The children were covered
with eruptions and blotches, many of them were thin
and pale, and some had swollen bellies. \Viten the
children were sent to Drouct's they were in a good state
of health, but many of them had returned in so ti,el
Matt., that some of them Were not yet out of the hospital.
Cross•examined by Sir F.' TlMMER—Before the
children left the union she was a nurse, and had frt quent
opportunities of observing their condition, by avending
the various wards. She hat had three children at Mr.
Drouet's cstablisbm:nt, end she had reason to bi-lieve
that they were well treated. She had slept one night at
Tooting ; and on one occasion she had thanked Mr.
l)rouet for his attention to her children. They were two
boys and a girl.
By the COURT— ller three children formed part of the
125 that were brought away, or rather two of them die.
The little girl was attacked with cholera, and could not
be removed. The two boys were also attacked, but sill
three of them had since recovered. She ore., c r twice
had an opportunity of seeing the female children in the
Tooting establishtnent at supper. The food appeared to
her to be good and plentiful. It consisted of bread and
treacle, and milk and water. t...he had never seen them
at dinner, but she had s' t n their dormitories. Hal the
food been insufficient or bad, the should have complained
of it.

. Mary Barris, examined by Mr. CLARKSON-0n the
evening of the sth of last January she was a nurse at
the Royal Free Hospital, and remembered little An-
drews, the deceased, being brought there. He was in a
very exhausted state, and havieg placed him by the side
of a fire she got him an egg and some bread and milk.
Ile did not eat it, but-said " Oh, what a big piece of
bread this is." She then undressed and put him to bed.
Baron PLArr—Are you in the habit of attending
children? Witness—Yes, my Lord.
Baron PLATT—WeII, did he appear to you to be tied
and fatigued; and was it that which made him want to
go to bed ?
Examination continued—When she undressed him
she found his body in a shockingly thin and emaciated
Atate. About six o'clock in the morning he was purged
And vomitted much. The purged fluid koked more like
dirty water than anything else; it was of a blue-blackish
Colour. Soon afterwards she sent for Mr. Whitfield,
and gave up charge of the child to him. There were
four nurses there that night.
Cross-examined by Sir F. THESIGER The four
nurses went from the Holborn Union to- attend the
3hildren, at the Royal Free Hospital. She knew
nothing of the child till she saw him at the hospital.
'lhe deceased, when he came to the hospital, did not
Complain of sickness.
By the Comer—The night was cold, and it rained,
and the children were covered all over. No other chil-
dren were sick, but some of them were purged.
William Benson Whitfield, the medical officer of the
Holborn Union, called and examined by Mr. CHAR •
BEIMS. On the 4th of January last he attended at Mr.
Drouers establishment to report upon the state of the
children. He went over the sick ward and some other
parts. There were a number of rooms appropriated to
the cholera cases. He made some notes of Mr. Droust's
visiting as suggestions which ho wished him to adopt
• eelaeive to warmer clothing, and to improving the qua-
]ity' of the food given to the children. In going through
the wards he observed the portion of the boys in the
beds.

►Sir PREDERICK THESIGER objected that the last

answer could not be admitted as evidence, unless it could
be shown thut the deceased had been subjected to the
same treatment. Andrews, it had been found, did not
exhibit symptoms of cholera till he was removed to the
11,0yal Free Hospital.
Baran PLATT suggested that they had better paaa over
thia part of the evidence.
Examination continued—ln conscquenco of that visit
he reported is favour of the removal of the children, and
he went down on the evening of the sth of January,
and examined all the Holborn children, amongst whom
Was Andrews. He considered there were about 159 in
a fit state to be removed, many of whom were then under
the influence of cholera.
Baron PLATT—And you believed them fit to be re-
moved? Witness—Yes, I did, my Lord.
Examination continued—He saw the vans the chil-
dren were removed in; they were covered. The night
Was cold and rainy. He saw Andrews on the following
morning, between seven and eight o'clock, when he was
suffering from an attack of the cholera, and resorted to
Means to recover him. He gave him hot blankets, and ap-
plied all the rt medics he thought were proper, and then
gave his attention to other cases.
Baron PLATT—I suppose you had formed your opinion
of Andrews' case directly you saw it? Witness—l saw
at vice that he was dying.
tn_rination continued—The week afterwards he
visited. M . Drouet'a establishment, and went through all
the rooms.
Mr. CaLtsittees—Di
had been in eachci you ascertain how many chil-
dren Sir F. THEsicereerliTrshoaotraj.on't do.
Baron PLATT---
Witness—He did. s Mr. Drouet told him.
Mr. CHAMBERS—WeII, now, in your opinion, how
many children could be placed In the rooms, consistently
with a due regard to health?
Sir F. THESIGER again objected. The opinion must
be confined to the room Andrews was in, and not gene-
rally to the whole.
Mr. CHAMBERS insisted that they had a right to show
the number of children the house would hold with safety
to their health.
Baron PLATT thought that the evidence must b
fined to the room where Andrews
was placed. e e°ll-
cLArtasort insisted that they had a right to show
that ihe whole house was over- crowded of which An-
dre
s room formed part.
Sir P. THESIGER rt toned that the establishment con-
2't d of several detached buildings, and asked th
"16 if that weie not to? The witness ° i
laid it was. wt.