The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-27 00:00:00

OLD COURT

CRIMINAL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. Justice MAULS.)
Hoer CE or AznY.— Chas. Thos. Pearce, a respectable
gentlemanly-looking person, surrendered to take his
trial on an indictment charging him with the man-
slaughter of his brother. Mr. 'lorry appeared for the
prosecution, and Mr. Sergeant Wilkins and Mr.
Parry for the defence.
The bill against the defendant was ignored by the
grand jury. The defendant was therefore arraigned
on the verdict of the coroner's jury, which was to the
effect that he had caused his brother to die of starvation,
in accordance with the doctrine of homoeopathy,
which the defendant had applied to the case of his
brother.
Mr. Honwr briefly stated the case against the
defendant as it was subsequently explained by the
evidence. The defendant's brother was attacked
with cholera on Saturday, the Bth of September,
and that he died on the 18th, in conse-
quence, it was alleged, of the improper treat-
ment to which he was subjected at the
hands of the defendant. It would become their
province to judge whether the defendant was or was
not properly qualified to act as a medical man, and
also to consider whether he treated his brother ac-
cording to the best of his judgment. It would not
be enough for them to be satisfied that he exercised
his judgment to the best of his ability, but they must
consider whether he was properly qualified to take
upon himself the duties and responsibilities of a
medical man. Having narrated the main facts of the
case, he called
Mrs. Pearce, the widow of the deceased, who de-
posed that her husband was taken ill on Saturday the
Bth of September, and that Mr. Harris, a medical
practitioner, was called in and attended him several
times in the course of the day, and prescribed
medicines which were sent and taken by the
deceased. She attended to all the directions given
by this gentleman. The defendant was sent for on
the Sunday morning at the request of his brother.
He came immediately, and saw the deceased two or
three times in the course of the day. He brought
him some how oaopathic medicines, and said that at
that time he was to have nothing else but the medi-
cines and some iced water. He paid attention to
him in this way until the following Wednesday. No
solid food at all was ordered, but on the Wednesday
he ordered a little weak gruel to be given to him, and
afterwards some beef tea.
Mr. Justice MAULE—IS it intended to infer that a
sick man will die from being kept without food for
three days ? If so (as we understood) I should not
be here this day.
Mrs. Pearce re-examined—Mr. Cobray, who had
been sent for the defendant, approved of his regimen.
Mr. Cobray attended the deceased on Thursday and
Saturday. The defendant sent medicines to the de-
ceaeed after the Wednesday, but did not see deceased
after that day ; I heard he was himself too ill to
come; afterwards Mr. Davis was sent for and pre-

~.to

.. to
...to

scribed.
Cross-examined by Sergeant WILKINS—Had known
the defendant ten years. Had heard that he had pur-
sued the study of medicine for five years, and that he
had been a lecturer on the physical sciences at the
University College, and had attended lectures, by Pro-
fessor Ellis and others, on anatomy and kindred sub-
jects, at the Royal Institution. The defendant came
at the request of his brother, but she could not say
whether he was sent for as a medical man or not.
Mr. Harris came once or twice after the defendant
had been. She gave the deceased some arrowroot
and a little weak gruel on the night before he died,
and a little bread, which he vomited after it had
been in his stomach three or four minutes. She
did so by direction of Mr. Davies. Afterwards he
had some weak brandy and water and chalk mixture,
also by Mr. Davies' direction. During the whole of
the period to which she had referred the cholera was
upon him.
At this part of the inquiry,
Mr. Sergeant WILKINS suggested that there was
no case to go to the jury. It appeared the deceased
laboured under the influence of cholera, and there
was not the slightest doubt that he died of the

.63%
5314

disease.
Mr. Justice MAULE said he certainly could not see
bow a verdict of manslaughter could be returned
upon such evidence; but perhaps it would be as well
to call a medical witness.
Mr. Harris was then called—He deposed that he
was called in on Sunday the 9th of September. He
found the deceased suffering from an attack of ma-
lignant Asiatic cholera. Saw him first about eleven
o'clock in the morning. Saw him next in the even-
ing, vs hen he was much in the same way
Mr. Justice MAULE—In what state of cholera did
you find him ? Witness—ln a state of colapse.
Mr. Justice MAULE—That is almost in a dying
state ? Witness—He was in a very critical state all
the day on Sunday.
Mr. HORRY—How was he on the Sunday, evening?
Witness—He was somewhat relieved, from the
sufferings he was undergoing in the morning. He
was not in so much pain.
Mr. Jusstice MAULE—Was he relieved from pain,
to some extent in consequence of the unfavourable
turn the case had taken ? Witness—Yes.
Mr. Justice MAULE—Did you believe him to be
dying ? Witness—l believed he was dying, but I did
not consider his case was hopeless.
By Mr. Honar—Was prepared to go on with the
case. Saw the defendant about half-an-hour after
he was called in to attend the deceased. Finding
he had a brother in the profession, I requested to see
him, in order that we might consult together with
respect to his case. When he saw him he
told him he considered his brother in very
great danger, and asked him if he had any
observations or sugggestions to make with re-
spect to his brother's welfare. He then spoke
of the benefits to be derived from the homoeopathic
system, and suggested that as everything that could be
done in accordance with the old system had been tried,
that he should like to have the homoeopathic system
applied to his brother's case, believing that it would
save him. Did not object, more particularly because
he understood the defendant to be in the profession,
and because he was the deceased's brother. I con-
sented to look in as a friend after this, but could not
act with the prisoner, not understanding the homoeo-
pathic system.
Mr. Justice MAULE—There was nothing in his
conversation to induce you to believe that he was not
in the profession? Witness—No; indeed, on the
contrary, he told me he had studied at the University
College for four years.
Mr. Justice MAULE—You had no doubt from his
conversation that he was a medical man. Of course
you can tell when you are talking to a man whether
he is in the profession or not ? Witness—Of course.
Mr. Justice MAULE—You would soon find a mat;
out who professed to he a medical man, and who hoc'
no right to such a title ? Witness—Oh, certainly.
Mr. Justice MAULE—How did you find the de'
ceased after the defendant had prescribed for him ?
Witness—He was considerably relieved; reaction
had taken place.
Mr. Justice MAULE—When did you see the de
ceased again ? Witness—On the following day.
Mr. Justice MAULE—HOW was he then ? Witness
—He was not so well. I did not see him aftervvards•
By Sergeant WILKINS—You say you saw the
deceased the day before his death ? Now what, in
your opinion, did he die of? Witness—From the
disease—from cholera. Judging from the condition
he was in on the Sunday when I first called to see
him, the disease was sufficiently strong upon him to
cause his death.
Mr. Justice MAULE—You saw the deceased 0
the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. In what state
was he? Witness—On Sunday his case was not quite
desperate. I thought, however, he would die.
Mr. Justice MAULE—In what state was he on the
Monday ? Witness—He had rallied. On Tuesday
he was rather worse, but not so ill as he was on the'
Sunday.
Mr. Justice MAULE—Then we may naturally on;
elude from your evidence that the mode of treatment
adopted by the defendant did the deceased good
Witness—lt appeared so, •eecl
Mr. Justice MAULE—When a person is so
with the cholera are his digestive organs fit to reeelt"
solid food. Witness—To receive light food.
Mr. Justice MAULE—I am asking you if a perms
in a state of collapse could eat solid food? Witness''
No • he could not. 1;1
Mr. Justice MAULE—He could not eat a beefsteo
Witness—No, he could not. dont
The jury immediately acquitted the defen
without hearing any further evidence, and be
discharJed. to
Mr. Justice MAPLE observed, this man seelned to
have doctored his brother as well as he could, en itio
have done him good. If this be manslaughter!
should none of us be safe. How any jury could not)
found a man guilty of manslaughter, upon
evidence, I am utterly at a loss to know.
O"
THE CASE OF ATTEMPTING TO MURDER A.-,
WlCH.—Stephen Alfred Jordan, alias Dozelonet2 to
was convicted a day or two ago of ado:ool%4th
murder Sarah Thomas Da ings, a young woron_ woo
yo
whom he had kept company, in Dulwich-u'
called up to receive the judgment of the Court. biou
Mr. Justice CRESSWELL having put on the in On
cap, passed sentence of death upon the convict.,tence
usual form. He said he had delayed passing se:a cit.'
in order to endeavour to find, if possible, I%lPgicel
cumstances of mitigation in his case. hnie of o°,
the most anxious consideration to the avh° _ boa
evidence adduced, and he regretted till&
ron:_neci
not met with any paliating circu Ids
He must therefore die. The Learned Judger ,eeel'
hold out to the prisoner the slightest hope 1
00_, There.;
He was committedlto Horsemonger-lane Gathl Wvo2o 1
if the sentence stands, the unfortunate yout
02000,
only seventeen, will be executed.
The prisoner bore his fate with tbe utlllos