The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-07 00:00:00

ana better. Saw him- soon -after he had been under
the prisoner. There was a- line of demarcation
around the tumour, and all the tissues .were de-
stroyed, as if some powerful caustic had .been
applied. The general symptoms showed poisoning
by some irritant poison. Corrosive sublimate was
sometimes applied to wounds, but not to cancer.
Caustic was applied to cancer, but it was dangerous
to apply it to a large surface. The quantity used
should be very small. Made a post mortem exami-
nation of the body. There were marks of extensive
inflammation in the bowels and numerous ulcera-
tions. They were the effects of mercury applied to
the tumour. The deceased died from the effects of
corrosive sublimate. Knew the case was hopeless..
The deceased might have died within 12 Months,
but the death was accelerated.

Cross-examined--Theiit;tiime we saw. him, on
the 19th of November, there was a slight discharge
from the cancer. Did not see the first cancer. Told
his family that we could do nothing for him, and
that it must be fatal. Had extracted cancers with
success. Had used nitric acid and muriatic acid,
but not arsenic. Differed from Dr. Fell as to the
use of arsenic and corrosive sublimate. The cancer
would not be touched until the skin was destroyed.
The cancer itself would not have caused the ulcera-
tions in the stomach. The blood might become
impure. There must be an ulcerous tumour before
there would be ulcers in the stomach. He had been
salivated during life.
By the Judge—The' use of corrosive sublimate,
and those strong remedies, required an experienced
person. Cancer was a blood disoase.

Mr. George May, surgeon of the Reading Hospi-
tal, removed a cancer from the lower lip or the de-
ceased on the sth Nov., 1857. Saw
.him again in
October, lB5B ; he had a tumour in his neck ; told
him it was a cancer, and recommended him not to
submit to any treatment. Saw him again after.
death ; there was a large surface in the neck covered
by a . brownish paste ; there was an extremely
offensive smell from it, which he believed arose
from the presence of mercury in the system ; there
was congestion of the stomach and intestines, with
extensive ulceration at the lower part. The other
organs of the body were healthy. Took part of
the cancer and paste adhering to it home, and
analysed it, and proved the presence of corrosive
sublimate. Mercury produced the appearances of
the body. Did not find arsenic. Death was caused
by the application of corrosive sublimate. That
would not be proper treatment for cancer. Con-
sidered it an improper caustic, because it was very
painful and dangerous if used in large quantities.
The caustics generally used produced a local effect
only. Was for some months at the hospital for
diseases of the skin ; and in some cases the applica•
tion of any caustic was fatal, as he should have ex-
pected it would have been in this case. As a gene-
ral rule, cancer would kill a young person more
quickly than an old one.
Cross-examined—The case was hopeless, and the
patient must have been left to die ; he was past all
medical skill. If the cancer was superficial it
might be removed by. caustic. In this case, had he
been compelled to use the knife or caustic, he
should have preferred the latter ; but he should
have left the patient to die: 'Had never seen cor-
rosive sublimate used. Did not consider this was
a constitutional cancer, but a local one. - Believed
the cancer communicated from the lip to the jaw.
Had never known cancer commence by ulceration.
It was legitimate to use muriatic or nitric acid, but
he should not use it. When he saw deceased in
October he thought he might live for some months.
By the Judge—Should not have expected ulcera-
tion in the bowels from this cancer.

Mr. Cooke then addressed the jury for the pri-
soner. What the prisoner had done was done in
the hope that it would help suffering humanity. If
he had acted honestly and bona fide he was
not guilty of manslaughter, although
he was not a regular practitioner. He hoped the
time would never arrive when the poor should be
prevented from having the assistance of their
neighbours. The first question was whether the
applition caused or accelerated the death, and
then/ had the prisoner acted with a criminal inten-
tion or with gross neglect?
Mr. Baron Watson said, if with a criminal inten-
tion it would be murder—it was criminal inatten-
tion.

Mr. Cooke said it was a mistake in the print.
The deceased had been visited with this almost fatal
disease ;he had submitted to an operation. The
disease reappeared, he applied again to Mr. May
and other surgeons, and they told him he must die,
for they could not administer a remedy, and they
declined to give any assistance. Let them place
themselves in the situation of that unhappy man,
looking to a speedy death. He applied to the pri-
soner, who had a reputation for skill ; he was re-
quested, to come and see him, and his opinion was
that in the course of a short time the deceased
would be able to come to him. He applied this
powder ; but were the jury satisfied that if there
had not been this application the deceased would
not have died as soon as he did ? Five weeks be-
fore his death he began to fail, and he became an
exhausted and dying man. Under all the circum-
stances, he trusted the jury would think they were
not justified in convicting the prisoner.
Three witnesses were called, who stated the pri
soner had cured them of cancers.
The learned Baron then summed up. If an igno-
rant man acted without skill it was an injury, and
not a benefit to mankind. When a man was given
up by men of great skill and ignorant men stepped
in, they often rendered the last days of a sufferer
most miserable and painful, if they did not cause
death.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty, but recom-
mended him to mercy.
Mr. Baron Watson, in sentencing the prisoner,
said he was quite satisfied in his own mind that he
thought he could cure this man, but unfortunately
he had taken upon himself to do that which no
man but a man of skill had a right to do. He had
deprived a family of a parent; such persons were a
great injury to society, they deprived persons of
those they loved dearli and tenderly, or rendered
their last days most miserable and unhappy. He
quite agreed with the: jury that it was not a case
for severe punishment. The sentence would be
three months' imprisonment without hard labour.

SOUTH WALES CIRCUIT.—CARDIGAN, March 5.
(Before Mr. Justice Hill.)
DAVIES V. DAVIES.
This was an issue sent down by the Court of
Probate and Divorce to be heard before a special
jury. The petitioner was Mrs. Jane Davies, and
the respondent'Mr. John Davies, a farmer, residing
at Glynucha, and the questions for the jury to try
were whether or not John Davies had treated his
wife with cruelty, and committed adultery.
Mr. Grove, Q.C., Mr. Giffard, and Mr. Brown
were counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. H. Allen
for the respondent.
In opening the case Mr. Grove said this was the
first case of the kind that had been sent into that
or any other part of the kingdom by the Court of
Divorce. He stated the case, and that he should be
able to prove not only acts of great cruelty by the
husband towards the wife, who was in sickly health,
but also the act of adultery with a woman
named Rowlands, who worked upon his farm.
The marriage of the parties having been formally
proved,
Mary Evans, servant to Mr. and Mrs. Davies, proved
that during the absence of Mrs. Davies, her mis-
tress, on a visit in 1853, Elizabeth Rowlands was
at the house and remained there a night. Between
2 and 3 o'clock in the morning, the daughter of her
mistress called her up, and, from what she said,
witness went down stairs to the best kitchen, when
she saw Elizabeth Rowlands lying on a sofa, and
her master lying with her in such a position as
could leave no doubt of their criminality. At other
times witness had frequently seen her master in the
fields visible from the house making signs by waving
his handkerchief, or putting his hat by his side.
After these signs she had seen the woman Row-
lands go out to meet him, and had seen them go to
a wood together.
Cross-examined—Had never seen Mrs. Davies
under the influence of drink. Had seen her hus-
band carry her upstairs, but that was on account of
a spinal complaint under which she was suffering.
David Williams, farm servant to Mr. and Mrs.
Davies, slept in a storeroom detached from the
house, and in March, 1854, he recollected seeing his
master come out of this storeroom. Soon, after
witness saw Mrs. Rowlands peeping out of the
door, and she afterwards came out. Witness saw
enough when he went to bed that night to convince
him that a man and woman had slept there. This
witness had also seen the two go to the wood to-
gether, and had seen marks in the wood where two
persons had been lying. There were toe and heel
marks in the soil. •
John Daniel had also seen the two go to the wood
together.
Edward Jenkins, auctioneer, about three years
ago saw Mrs. Rowlands and Mr. Davies proceeding
in the same direction, and, from what he had heard,
he watched them, and saw them lying down under
a wood in an " affectionate position.' •
Other evidence of a similar kind was given, and
a-code of " signals," found by Mrs. Davies in her
husband's pocket, was found, in which directions
were laid down fcr communicating between two
persons.
Some members of the family were called to prove
that Mr. Davies had ill-treated his wife on several
occasions.
The defence was a counter allegation of drunken-
=ss against Mrs. Davies ; but this• was not sup-
ported by the evidence.
The jury found that John Davies Luld treated his