The Sun.
London, England, 1831-06-23 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT.

His Honour the MASTER of the ROLLS took causes to-
day, but no case of interest, except to the parties, crrne
before the Court, previous to our Reporters lea.ving.

VICE- CRANCELL OR' S COURT.

The VICE-CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole morn.
ing with arguments in b tnkrupt petitions of no public im.
portance.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH.
Li MM....WESTERN HOSPITAL-SLEIGH V. POPE.

In this case the plaintiff is a surgeon, and the founder
of the late Western Hospital. The case was stated by
Mr. F. Porinoce, who said the action was brought to
recover compensation in damages for a gross and malici-
ous libel on the character of the plaintiff, published by the
• defendant. The Learned Counsel read the libel, which
imputed that the plaintiff had founded the Hospital io
question from motives of gain, and charged him with
publishing some encomiums on his own conduct, and
forging the names of the Governors, &c. to it. It further
charged the plaintiff with having in one instance charged
an Hospital patient for his attendance and medicine, and
in general terms charged him with gross misconduct in
the whole of his management of the Hospital. Of
these the Learned Gentleman was in a situation to
prove the defendant had two hundred printed, and
that he had also sent a number of them to
different newspapers, so that they might receive as great a
circulation as possible. The Learned Gentleman at great
length went on in his address to the Jury, and stated this
to be a most unfounded libel, and one 83 gross that the
plaintiff would never again hold up his head in the re-
spectable profession to which he belonged, unless the Jury,
by their verdict, restored him to the world as frea and clear
as before these imputations were published. He would
prove that from the very day on which this libel appeared,
the hospital daily went down in public estimation, the de-
fendant had pleaded a justification, so that he would re-
serve what else he had to say till after he had heard what
defence would be set up. He then called
Dr. Epps, who stated that he was a pupil of the
plaintiff's for two years, about the year 1823. The
plaintiff was a member of the College of Surgeons,
and was Surgeon and Lecturer to the Royal Western
Hospital, which was established in the year 16327 ;
Witness attended some meeting of the governors and the
public at the Yorkshire Stiugo, at one of which Mr.
Dawson, M.P. presided, had seen the defendant Mr. Pope
at some of the meetings where he took a very active part
in the discussions, he was practitioner in Manchester-
square. The meeting at which Mr. Dawson presided,
was to give an opportunity to the persons opposing Mr.
Sleigh, to state their objections to his continuing an
officer in the Hospital ; the defendant took a part in those
proceedings as one of Mr. Sleighs opponents.
Cross-examined by Sir JAMES SCARLETT-The first
meeting at the Yorkshire Stingo, was on the Bth May,
1830. Witness went there partly because he saw the
advertisement in the public paper, and partly because he
received a circular, but could not say who that circular
came from ; there were about 300 persons present. A
committee was appointed to examine into the management
of the Hospital, and Mr. Sleigh proposed Mr. Pope as one of
that committee. The second meeting was about two or three
weeks after, called by large placards, but he could not say
that they were put out by the plaintiff; could not remem-
ber that there was a second Committee appointed. Did
not subscribe any money, but attended the Hospital gra-
tuitously. He was afterwards appointed Physician to the
Hospital ; did not know whether he was proposed by Mr.
Sleigh or not. Believed the public meetings were not
held in pursuance of the rules of the Hospital. Sir
Charles Scudamore was a Governor and Physician.—
Witness attended gratuitously on the application of the
plaintiff; had never either given or promised bins any
consideration for being allowed to practise. Witness was
not a licentiate of the College of Physicians.
By Mr. PonnocK—Continued to he physician till the
Hospital broke up. Dr. Hare was physician before the
witneas,.but resigned. There were good beds for upwards
of one hundred patients ; had a great many out-patients—
had know from forty to fifty patients in the hospital at
one time. There bad been between 4 sad 5,000 persons
relieved doling the witness' attendance; had heard from
the Rev. Mr. Harris that the Duke of York's Fund was
to be appropriated to the hospital; witness had taken his
degree from the College at Edinburgh, arid was a graduate
of the College of Physicians there.
By Sir J. SCARLETT—Had also heard from Mr.
Sleigh t` at the Duke of York's fund was to be appro-
priated to the funds of the hospital. He heard it men-
tioned by Mr. Harris at an evening party in Mr. Sleigh's
house, it was not an hospital but an hospitable supper.
By Mr. POLLOCK-111r. Harris stated that it was from

his connexion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, that
he spoke of the Duke of York's fund, and Mr. Sleigh only
spoke of it on Mr. Harris' authority.
Mr. Balfour, Secretary to the Royal College of Sur-
geons, stated that the plaintiff was a member of that
College, and a regularly recognised lecturer.—Crotsa-
examined : The Western Hospital was not one from
which certificates would be received.

Mr. Davey stated that he was a printer, and received
the first order to print the paper in question (the libel)
from Dr. Clifton, who ordered 12 copies. Afterwards
Mr. Pope came to learn the expence of 200 copies : on
being told he ordered 250 to be printed. Witness pro-
duced one of them—was paid by the defendant, Mr. Pope.,
Sir J. SCARLETT objected to the paper being read, as it
was not proved to have been received from the defendant,
nor was it proved that the !hinter sent the copies to him.
His LORDSHIP thought there was evidence of the print-
ing by order of the defendant, but not of publishing.
The witness, in answer to his Lordship, said he be-
lieved the copies were sent for to his office.

His LORDSHIP now thought there was evidence of both
printing awl publishing.

Sir JAMESSCARLEIT then addressed the Jury at con-
siderable length for the defendant, He was not instructed
to deny that the defendant was connected with this pub-
lication, nor did he deny that many other most respect-
able individuals had been concerned in the publication.
The defendant, however, had pleaded that the statements
in the publication were true, and if he proved the truth
of them, he would be entitled to a verdict. The object
of the defendant was not to destroy a hospital founded for
charitable purposes, but to put an end to a system of fraud.
The main charge against the plaintiff was, that he had
conducted this hospital solely for his own private gain,
and that he had practised a system of deceit by which
some charitably disposed persons were induced to part
with their money. The plaintiff having taken four houses
of four different persons, and established what he called
the Royal Western Hospital ; gave out that it was sup-
ported by charitable subscriptions, and he used the names
of illustrious persons as subscribers who bad never heard
of such an institution in their lives. It would also be
proved, that he had taken pupils, though he knew that
the hospital was not recognised by the College of Surgeons,
that he had received money from pupils and that he sold
situations in the hospital, one for 5501., another for
1,0001., &c. The Learned Counsel proceeded at great
length through a great variety of circumstances to show
that the hospital was solely got up and managed by the
plaintiff under a pretext that it was for purposes of charity,
but really a mode of obtaining money for his own use, and
concluded by calling the following evidence.
An immense quantity of evidence taken before a Com.
mission at Paris was put in. The first was, that
of Mr. Matthew Truman, who stated that he had been
surgeon and demonstrator to the hospital, being appointed
to those situations by the plaintiff, in consideration of
paying him at one time 100 guineas and 500 guineas;
that the deponent knew the plaintiff to have propeted the
hospital solely for the purpose of furthering his own pri-
vate interests, the plaintiff having stated that he calcu-
lated upon having annually 150 pupils at a premium of
20 guineas a year; that the plaintiff was in embarrassed
circumstances, and was afraid of being arrested for debt ;
that the names of many of the plaintiff's children, aged
two years old and upwards, were put down in the sub-
scription-book (the male children with " Esquire" at-
tached to them) as subscribers, and that the plaintiff
although at a public meeting he stated that the funds
were in a flourishing condition, knew that there was a debt
of 7001. to 1,0001.

At this stage of the proceeding Lord TENTEADEN sug-
gested the propriety of examining some witnesses first, as
it might be desirable to release them, the documentary
evidence being very voluminous.
Counsel on both sides having agreed to that suggestion,
Sir J. SCARLETT called the following witnesses :
The Archbishop of Canterbury stated that he believed

he was a =ism iber to the hospital, but lie e,mll n t re-
collect it; he never authorized any person to state that the
22,0001. raised for the Duke of York's monument was to
he applied to this hospital. That fund was more particu-
!ally under the management of the Duke of We.lingten,
and he (the Archbishop) could not have proposed that it
could go to other purposes than that for which it was sub-
scribed, without ascertaining the sense of the subscrilkrs.
His Grace had no recollection of giving 30/. to the hospi-
tal, but he believed he gave something.
Cross-examined by Mr. POLLOCK Dr. Scudamore ap-
plied to his Grace on the subject, and his Grace understood
Dr. Scudamore had some medical connection with the
hospital. The subscription passed through the hands of
Dr. Scudamore.

Mr. Thomas Copeland, a member of the College of
Surgeons, stated that in June 1529, he was deputed to this
hospital, to ascertain if it was fit to be recognized as a
school of surgery; lie report was, that it was not a fit
school to be recognized by the College of Surgeons; wit-
ness visited it only orce, but there were other deputations
from the College.
Mr. Lawrence also a member of the College of Surgeons
was deputed to visit the hospital for the same purpose as
Mr. Copeland,and his report was similar to that gentleman',..
Cross-examined—Applications had been made by the
Surge ,ns of the Hospital requesting that certificates
might be received from that establishment. There was a
rule that a hospital before it was recognised should have
a hundred patients. Witness found about fifty patients
there. That regulation is omitted in the present rid, aof
the Colllege.

The reports of the two preceding witn,sses were ti.en
read.

Lord TENTERDIN said, Lord Dimbayle, we believe, a-as
in waiting, and being very unwell it would he desirable to
examine him.

Sir JA3IES SCARLETT SAid he did not wish to examine
his Lordship.

Mr. POLLOCK said he would be obliged to (all his 1.01(1
ship by 411 d bye.
Lord Dunboyle was then requested by the Loan Cum'
JUSTICE to retire into a private room until he was wanted.
Mr. Lawrence, to a question by Mr. Pommel:, said
the situations of surgeon to an hospital and demonstrator
were very profitable ones, and considerable sums were
made by pupils; but he never heard until to-day that such
situations were sold.

The reading of the documentary evidence was then pro-
ceeded with.

It is not probable from the number of witnesses that re-
main to be examined that the case will be over until late
in the day.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
SLANDER.—COLLIER V. SAMPSON.
This was an action for slanderous expressions made use
of by the defendant, an apothecary, injurious, it was al-
leged, to the professional character of the plaintiff, a phy-
sician.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE and Mr. WHITE appeared for the
plaintiff, and Mr. Serjeant BUMPAS for the defendant.
Dr. Francis Hawkins, registrar of the College of Phy-
sicians, proved that the plaintiff had been admitted a Li_
centiate of the College in March last.
Mary Minter sworn—She resides at Hammersmith. A
son of her's was taken ill on the 7th of April last. The
defendant h ippened to pass, and witness's daughter
begged of him to conic in and look at the child ; he did
so,
fever;and said h
defendant
he
tt
then
usgenhtt its had, a touchoulspow, of
iers,
which typhustthe
child took ; it however continued to grow worse, and en
the Wednesday following the defendant was sent for three
times but did not come till the next day, and then said
that the child had water on the brain. On Friday he came
again accompanied by another gentleman, and he then
' sad the child could not recover. He came also on Satur-
day, but not on Sunday. In consequence of this omission,
and in momentous fear of the child's death, witness sent
fur the plaintiff. He came and prescribed, and directed
o witnessnto Tuesdayl the m
waknowterbleigoawn tthoe
ccolm, i led
fis.voams nt threnai:ir,e ianngd.
ae
continued to flow at intervals till Friday, When it ceased,
and the fits then commenced. The child grew worse, and
on Saturday afternoon died. Mr. Simpson had visited
the child on the Tuesday, when the water began to flow.
He asked how the little boy was. He went in and felt the
child's pulse, and said he certainly was much better. The
witness then informed him that Dr. Collyer had seen the
child on Sunday. The defendant then asked to set the
Doctor's prescription and the medicine ; and upon
looking at it said it was " rank poison," and he
would not give it to a child of his, for it was
' calculated to throw the child into a strong salivation.
He added that it was hags vomit or some such name,
that she might, however, give it if she liked. (This
witness, in the course of the examination, fainted, and
was carried out of Court insensible.
Mr. Dale, an apothecary, went with Dr. Collyer to
visit the child ; the case was hydrocephalus ; there was a
slight salivation; considered Dr. Collyer's prescription
eminently proper.
Cros-examined.—Had been a pulpil of Dr. Collyers six
years ado; at that time Dr. Collyers was only a private
teacher of medicine.
Sir Henry Halford examined from the Bench—Had heard
the state of the child on the Sunday, and he fully approved
of the prescriptions prepared by Dr. Collyer were proper
and appropriate, the second prescription was highly proper
to follow the first. The doses of corrosive sublimate, with
the infusion of digitalis, were not excessive, hut were
proper doses. Such quantities have been sanctioned by
medical books of authority—the works of Dr. Merryman
and Sir Astley Cooper on the diseases of children, were
considered very high authorities.
Mr. Serjeant nuarens objected to the production of the
books, as Sir Astley could be called as a witness, and there-
fore whatever that learned gentleman might have written
could not be received in evidence.
The Court allowed the objection.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Bustrus—ln a con-
ference he had had with Mr. Cullyer, respecting the child,
he suggested that it might bd necessary to give a portion
of laudanum after the other remedies of an active nature
bad been resorted to. He had given precisely the same
medicine himself to a child seven years of age, which was
the age of the child deceased.
Doctor Merryman was next examined. He also consi-
dered the prescriptions of Doctor Cullyer for a case of
Hydrocephalus, highly proper and necessary. He had
himself given the same remedies to children affected with
that disease, in order to cause a flow of water by the
mouth from the head. He had never given the prepara-
tions iu combination, but had separately. The symptount
of water on the head, are convulsions and paralysis of the
arm. From the appearances that had been described to
have presented thetruelvea in the child, he should think
es
strong clove highly necessary.
By the COURT-lie thought that a strong dose would
have been best to have been administered, but he did not
think any dose would have had the effect of removing the
Hydrocephalus.
Sir George Tuthill also said that the prescriptions and
treatment of Dr. Collyer were highly proper.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Buatrus.—H the
child had not laboured under hydrocephalus, but under an
infantine fever, then the medicines prescribed would have
been impoper—and sometimes au idantine fever bears a
strong resemblance to hydrocephalus ; but he had no
reason to believe that it would prove fatal if kept on for a
day or two-...it would not be unsafe.
Several other eminent Physicians were in attendance for
the plaintiff, and the case was proceeding when our Re-
porter left the Court. The trial excited very considerable
interest in the medical world.

When the cholera visited China, it was re-
marked that it selected such as lived in filth and intemper-
ance; and that, on the contrary, persons of undaunted •
mind, with habits of cleanliness and moderation, were for
the most part exempt from its attacks.
His MAJESTY's Speech was received on
Tuesday evening in Brighton, by the Red Rover coach, in
four houra.--Brighton Gazette,
EAST INDIA COMPANY.--Mr. CHARLES
GRANT intends to move for a Select Committee on the
affairs of India, in the course of next week.
In the metropolis, as well as in many other
parts of the kingdom, the returns under the late census
have been very much swelled by the prodigious number of
Irish that arc among us.

A Correspondent urges us to draw the atten-
tion of those who have the means of remedying it to the
dangerously overloaded state of many of the stage-coaches
which leave London, especially from Piccadilly and Oxford-
street, in some of which the outside passengers are scarcely
distinguishable amidst the mass of boxes and package, in
which they are generally enveloped.
beent
as
fe
f
ad
to
JIOI
of
:olgthotreGdeisnicluiThrmatnoothaiesndashidyivnedai
:yo:ggfolb:ntiyhivieinnuin
eunbome::::bnigor
srrebr
esie almost9,o.
rrlf aeleadsd bp,
nal:ledteicinittslrols:i
oobaing,inipuiee,tptitet
driinensit
iiht)
atorymeti,ti all,
\heatothe::
,sae
h:1
pressure;—all which
. 4.1.
orders
u
ae
hold.