The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONEON) THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 25, 1857.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.--June 23.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Mr. Justice Cresswell.)
JONES versus HALES.
This was an action for an alleged libel avainst the de-
he Daily News. Mr, Sergeant
Byles, Mr. E. James,
fondant, as publisher of tilde D
Keene were counsel for
and Mr. Keene were counsel for
the plaintiff; Mr. Thil, Mr.
Lush, and Mr. Fitzpatrick
the plaintiff ; Mr. Hil 1,
for the defendant.
Mr. Keene opened the pleadings. The declaration
contained a count charging the defendant with a libel.
The defendant pleaded, first, not guilty ; and as to part
of the alleged libel, a justification.
ate Sergeant Byles, in addressing the jury, said the
plaintiff, Dr. Jones, was a gentleman who had pro-
fessed the pactice of medicine for a long series of years.
He was for twenty years a practitioner at Lutter-
worth, and was now residing in Albany-street, Regent's
Park. The defendant was the r gistertd proprietor of
the Daily News, and the action was brought for a
serious libel contained in the Daily News of Monday,
the 10th November last. He only did the Daily News
justice when he said that it was not in the habit of
inserting articles which assailed the character of private
individuals, but on the present occasion there had ap-
peared in its columns a libel of a character which it was
utterly impossible that any gentleman should allow to
pass without appearing before a public tribunal and de•
mending an explanation thereupon. He might say that
where a man's character was dealt with unfairly and un-
justly, but only general accusations were made, the pro-
per course was to pass them over in silence and to leave
them alone ; but where a distinct accusation of a very
serious nature, or even of a trifling nature, was made
against the personal character of an individual, if he
were to hold up his head in society, it was absolutely
essential that he should appeal to the lass for re-
dress. He gathered from what appeared in this libel,
as undoubtedly the fact was, that a gentleman of
the name of Brettell, an English gentleman, was
resident in Paris, and that he had a fortune of some
four or five thousand a year. He died in the month
of November, 1856. Shortly after his death there
appeared the extraordinary paragraph in the Daily
News to which he woi call their attention, and on
which he should take liberty of making one or two
observations. The proprietors of the Daily News were
represented by their able counsel, and the jury would
bear whether they intended to uphold their plea of justi-
fication by any evidence. The libel complained of ap-
peared in a letter from a correspondent of this news-
paper, dated "Paris, Saturday Evening," and;it was in
these words :
"I mentioned two or three days since that some
friends of the late Mr. Alfred C. Brettell, entertaining
suspicions that the cause of his death had, not been truly
stated, had applied to the Procureur Imperial for a post
mortem examination. The funeral took place before any
order on the subject was made. But the result of a
judicial inquiry has so far confirmed the grounds for
suspicion, that the authorities have thought it right to
have the body exhumed. A post mortem examination
was made this day by Dr. Tardien, the eminent surgeon
usually employed in such cases, and the contents of the
stomach, the heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two
sealed jars, have been taken away to be examined. The
subject causes so much excitement among the English resi-
dents of the Faubourg St. Honore, and is so generally
talked of, that I no longer fear to prejudice any one by
giving an outline of the case as it
,has been represented
to me. Mr. Brettell was a gentleman of a large fortune,
amounting, as some say, to 60,0001., and as others say,
to 100,0001. Toe whole of this fortune is understood
to be left by will to an English lady, now in Paris, who
was no relation to the deceased. He was in a bad state
of body, owing to intemperate habits, and it appears
that he was shaken and injured a good deal by the fall
from the box of his carriage, which occurred, not at
Chantilly, as stated by mistake, but on the Lamarche
race-course. After that accident he was taken home
and placed under the care of his ordinary medical at-
tendant, Dr. M'Carthy, an English subject, but a li-
censed member of the French Faculty of Medicine. He
got considerably better, and Dr. M'Carthy did not con-
sider him in any immediate danger. However,
whether by his own wish or not, I have not heard,
a Dr. Jones, who it seems had attended him
on previous occasions, was sent for by telegraph
from London, and it is alleged that Dr. Jones
proceeded to treat him without putting himself in com-
munication with Dr. M'Carthy, which it is said, accord-
ing to the medical etiquette usually observed, he ought
to have done. This Dr. Jones administered to the pa-
tient a white powder, which he took from his waistcoat
pocket, and two hours after taking this powder Mr.
Brettell died. Now the circumstances which are consi-
dered to call for explanation oa the part of Dr. Jones
are that he at first signed a certificate that the deceased
had died from epilepsy, that he subsequently stated that
he and Dr. M'Carthy were both prepared to certify that
concussion of the brain was the cause of death (the fact
being that Dr. M'Carthy declines to concur in any such
certificate), that he has on several occasions admitted
that the medicine he administered to Mr. Brettell was a
most potent one, and that when pressed to say what it
was, his only answer is, ' That is my secret.' On being
interrogated by the commissary of police, and asked to
produce a specimen of the powder, he said he had none
left, but he finally wrote a prescription for making it
up. Although the circumstances certainly call for that
thorough investigation which they will receive, I can-
not help thinking that it will turn out that there has
been no wilful poisoning in the case. In the meantime
Dr. Jones has been ordered not to leave Paris, and is
Under surveillance."
Now the jury would pardon him for reminding them
that no excuse for uttering slanders was to be found in
the fact that the parties had heard them from other peo-
ple. It was perfectly clear, and had been recently laid
down in cases which be need not allude to, that if a
person published a libel on another, imputing to him
great misconduct, his saying at the same time, " I have
beard it ; it is the current report," was no justification
whatever, for if that were so, then the most atrocious
libels might be published on anybody, merely by adding
that people said so, and that the writer had heard it.
When the defendant assumed to justify such a libel as
that, it was necessary for him to show, not only that the
reports existed, but that the circumstances embodied in
those reports were true. He had read the libel, and there
were some facts in it which undoubtedly were correctly
stated. Mr. Brettell was a gentleman of large fortune living
at Paris. He would not say how Mr. Brettell met his
death, but he believed it was true that he was shaken and
injured by a fall from the box of his carriage on the La-
marche racecourse, and that he sustained a serious in-
jury, from which two or three days after he died. So
much of this libel was true. It was also true that there
was a post-mortem examination, It was not true that
the funeral took place before any order on that subject
was made, and there were many other statements which
were not true, but with which he need not encumber his
statement at that moment. The paragraph stated that
Mr. Brettell had left the whole of his fortune to an
English lady now in Paris, who was no relation of the
deceased. Now here was a dark insinuation. Then
it stated that Dr. Jones was sent for from London, and
that Dr. Jones administered to the deceased a white
powder, which he took from his waistcoat pocket, and
that when Dr. Jones was asked to state what the white
powder was, he replied, "That is my secret." The pa-
ragraph wanton to state that "although the circumstances
certainly call for that thorough investigation which
they will receive, I cannot hety thinking that there has
been no wilful poisoning in the case. In the meantime
Dr. Jones has been ordered not to leave Paris, and ,is
under surveillance." The meaning of that was that
people thought Dr. Jones had murdered the deceased.
But dismissing the charge of wilful poisoning, here was
a gentleman in the practice of physic who was charged,
at all events with the grossest possible misconduct and
ignorance. It was stated that be administered this
white powder, and that the deceased died two hours
after. The writer then went on to state circumstances
of suspicion against De. Jones, saying that be had sign-
ed a certificate that the deceased died of epilepsy, and
that he subsequently stated that he and Dr. M'Carthy
were both prepared to certify that death was caused by
concussion of the brain, whereas Dr. Weedily declined to
concur in such certificate. The learned sergeant proceed-
ed to say that he should have an opportunity of address-
ing them again, and that it was sufficient to state at pre-
sent that this was a libel of a most serious character. He
had nothing to do but to put in the libel,, and the
defendant stood convicted of having published it. The
defendant's counsel said the libel was true in substance
and in effect. That was the fearful issue which lay upon
his learned friend. He ventured to prognosticate that
at the conclusion of this case his learned friend would
find that he had not supported his plea of justification,
and that it had not availed him.
George Oakley was then called—He produced the cer-
tificate kept at the Stamp-office, certifying that the de-
fendant is publisher of the Daily News.
Mr. James said that was the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. Hill submitted that there was no case. There
waa no evidence that the Dr. Jones mentioned in the
Paragraph was the plaintiff in this case.
The Judge—There is certainly no evidence of that.
~.
• "1"- W. Jones was then called. He said—l am a
surgeon
comer
inatoLan dtterworth. My father is a medical practi-
my father. r' I have read this libel. It applies to
for some
yea n: Brettell was a patient of my father's
Cross-exarnieeed b
father that he, had Mr. Hill—l have heard from my
have also
heard
iranaattended him for delirium tremens. I
uly father
re that rs. Cngham
succeeded to one-half eMaa:t Bttell'Ms fortune.unni She is
not related to Mr. Brettell
The reason I believe the
libel applies to my father is, that I received a letter 'co
him, and from my knowing eke m
Mr, Brattell, and that he
pal a patient of my father's.
Mr. Hill then addressed the jury for the defence. He
said his friend Mr. Sergeant Byles had brought to bear
Lis dexterity in his conduct of this caee. Ile had made
some observations to them, which might be termed corn-
mon-place, because they were used in all cases of this
kind. If a man's private character were assailed it was a
matter of course that he should seek to set himself right
with the public. But what had Dr. Jones done in this
easel This libel as it was called was published ea Nov.
10, and on the 13th an action was brought. His learned
friend had admitted that the Daily Yeas was not in the
habit of printing libels against the personal character of
individuals. The article complained of appeared in the
letter of the Paris correspondent, and Dr. Jones did not
condescend to write to the Daily News saying, "You
have done wrong," and demanding a coctrad;ction of
any of the statements which were incorrect, No ; but
in order to justify his character he served the publisher
with a writ, that he might put damages into his own
pocket and costs into the pocket of some one else. Then,
why was the action conducted in this hurried cunning
manner, holding everything back, and trusting to make
out a case by picking boles in the case for the defence ?
If the plaintiff had been actuated merely by a desire to
place himself right before the public, would he not in

the first place have demanded an explanation in the
paper, and stated what were the true facts, and de-
manded that they should be placed in as prominent a part
of the paper and in as large type as the statements com-
plained of had been ! And if, that not being done, he had
brought his action, would he not have got into the wit-
ness-box this day, and on his oath stated that it was not
true that he took a white powder from his waistcoat
pocket and administered it to Mr. Brettell ; that it was
not true that he signed a certificate that death was caused
by epilepsy; that it was not true he had expressed his will-
ingness to sign a certificate that death was caused by con-
cussion of the brain 1 Why had not Dr. Jones ventured to
do all that? Because he could not do it safely. Looking at
his conduct and the conduct of his counsel, in the conduct
of his case to-day, it was clear that the object was to ob-
tain a verdict which would put damages into the plain-
tiffls pocket, and costs into the pocket of some one else,
and not to clear up Dr. Jones's character. What did
this paragraph say ? It began by stating that " Some
friends of the late Mr. Alfred C. Brettell, entertaining
suspicions that the cause of his death bad not been truly
stated, had applied to the Procureur Imperial for a post-
mortem examination." That was perfectly true. Then
it stated that "The funeral took place before any order
on the subject had been made ; but the result of a judi-
cial inquiry had so far confirmed the grounds for suspi-
cion that the authorities have thought proper to have
the body exhumed." That was the fact. It went on to
say, "a post-mortem examination was made this day by
by Dr. Tardieu, the eminent surgeon usually employed
in such cases, and the contents of the stomach, tthe
heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two sealed jars,
have been taken away to be examined." That was
likewise true. Then there was the statement that the
whole of Mr. Brettell's fortune had been left by will
to an English lady, who was no relation of the deceased.
It appeared from the evidence that it was not the whole
of his fortune, but only the half, which was left to
her, and the statement was so far inaccurate. The other
statements in the alleged bill were also in the main true.
It was true that Dr. Jones was sent for by telegraph
to London, that he proceeded to treat Mr. Brettell with-
out placing himself in communication with Dr. M'Carthy.
He believed that Dr. Jones administered the medicine
believing it would be beneficial to his patient, but he
thought the jury would come to the conclusion that he
was guilty of an error in judgment in administering it
without consulting with Dr. M'Carthy. The certificate
signed by the plaintiff that the deceased died from epilepsy
would be produced, and it would be proved that the
plaintiff afterwards stated that concussion of the brain
was the cause of death. And there was this strong fact,
that when Dr, M'Carthy came in the plaintiff led hum to
suppose that he had given the deceased nothing more than
an effervescingdraught,andDr.M‘Carthy would tell them
that tartar emetic was a most proper medicine to give at
that time. The only inaccuracy in the paragraph was that
which spoke of Dr. Jones being under surveillance, the
fact being that after the examination was over he asked
if he might leave Paris, and he was told he might, so
that he was only under surveillance till the investigation
was over. Now, what was the charge against Dr.
Jones that would have degraded him it he had not come
before a public tribunal ? Look at the position of a jour-
nal conducted as the Daily News was, which, as his
learned friend said, was not in the habit of inserting
libels, but which bad to discharge its duty to the public
by giving information. Here was a matter which had
caused great excitement in Paris, and the newspaper
properly gave information both with regard to public
matters and social life. Here was an English gentle-
man residing in Paris, with a large fortune, who met
his death in a manner that required investigation, a
large portion of his fortune being left to a person
who was no relative. What did the correspondent say
in conclusion ? "I cannot help thinking that there
has been no wilful poisoning in the case," showing that
there was no desire to impute improper motives. Now,
how came it that Mr. Brettell met with his death ? His
father was originally in trade, and he amassed a large
fortune, which the son was spending in Paris. His habits
were not very temperate. On Sanday,ithe 26th of Oat.,
he had the misfortune to be thrown out of a dogcart,
sustained a slight concussion of the brain, and was taken
to his house. Dr. M'Carthy was sent for, and he saw
him in his room, and would tell them the condition
which Mr. Brettell was in. He was in the perfect pos-
session of his senses. He told him how he had fallen,
and he actually asked to have the trowsers produced, in
order to show how he had gone against the wheel, and he
also asked for a bag of money which he bad taken with
him to the racecourse, and which he placed under his
pillow for safe custody. He (Mr. Hill) mentioned this
because his friend would probably try to go into evi-
dence to show that there was a concussion of the brain,
and it therefore became material to show how Mr. Bret-
tell was on the Sunday afternoon. Dr, M'Carthy saw
him again in the evening, and on Monday morning he
was going on as favourably as possible. On the Tuesday
morning Dr. M'Carthy was sent for about four o'clock.
He came and found his patient in a feverish condi-
tion, and while be went to the table for the purpose of
writing a prescription, he heard that peculiar scream
which was the first outbreak of an epileptic fit. After a
time he became in a comatose condition. Afterwards he
recovered his senses, and had another fit about 8 o'clock,
and then he had some refreshing sleep for about two
hours. On the Wednesday morning he was rather better.
In the evening he was ordered a batb, and delirium tre-
mens set in, but he was conscious of the delusions. On
the Thursday Dr. Jones was telegraphed for, and he ar-
rived about 9 o'clock in the morning of Friday at Mr.
Brettell's residence. He believed the first thing that Dr.
Jones did was to or der the deceased a seidlitz powder,
and then he took from his waistcoat pocket a white pow-
der and administered some of it. Now Dr. M'Carthy
would tell them that there was nothing in the condition
of Mr. Brettell to render it necessary to give him medicine
before Dr. M'Carthy arrived. No doubt medical eti-
qaette should give way when the life of a human
being was in danger ; but there was nothing in
Mr. Bretteli's condition to make hanecessary to ad-
minister to him medicine before the arrival of Dr.
M`Carthy, who lived within a ten minutes' walk. Dr.
M'Carthy arrived in about a quarter of an hour, and for
some reason or other Dr. Jones carefully concealed from
him the fact that he had given him the white powder.
He thought it was on the Tuesday following that he first
communicated the fact that he had administered tartar
emetic to Mr. Brettell. And when it was considered
that within two hours after the powder was adminis-
tered Mr. Brettell died, he was sure everybody would
say that at all events this was a case requiring investiga-
tion. There was no doubt that rumours were abroad, and
many persons were loud in the tone in which they con-
versed en this subject. The consequence was these was
this order of the public authorities for the exhumation, and
they would find that when it was stated to Dr. Jones that
it was desirable there should be a post mortem examina-
tion before the funeral took place, he objected, and said
his certificate would be abundantly sufficient. Mr.
Brettell was buried, and he was exhumed by order of
the public authorities. There was an examination of
the contents of the Stomach by Dr. Tardieu, and it was
proved there had been no poison whatever. Thee it was
that Dr. Jones asked if he might quit Paris. What the
Daily News bad done was to communicate that which
was really a matter of public intelligence, affecting the
public weal, a matter which was conversed of openly
among the public, and not in the least degree te make
an imputation against Dr. Jones. There was no malice
against Dr. Jones, but Dr. Jones's conduct showed he
did not want any explanation, but he wanted damages.
It would be for the jury to say whether this was a pub-
lication that was intended to defame the character of Dr.
Jones, or whether it related to a matter of public inte-
rest, written by a correspondent of the paper who had
no malice against Dr. Jones ; and then they came to the
other issue, whether the allegations in the paragraph
were substantially true, and he should show that they
were.
The Court then adjourned.
SECOND DAY—JUNE 24.
The trial was resumed this morning, when an exami-
nation of the O'Gorman Mahon before a commission sit-
ting on the 21st Jan., at the Hotel Windsor, Paris, was
put in and read. The material parts of it were that the
witness was formerly a member of the House of Com-
mons ; that he now mixed with and knew the best of
English society at Paris. He knew Mr. Brettell, who
sought his acquaintance in Jan. or Feb., 1856, and for
many reasons he took more interest in him than in an
ordinary acquaintance. One was that at the first inter-
view Mr. Brettell ascertained that he had attained the
highest degree in masonry, and he introduced himself to
him as a brother mason, and called on him as being in a
foreign land to extend to him such assistance and
friendship as the obligations of masonry required him to
do, describing himself as being destitute of family and
friends. On one occasion the O'Gorman Mahon ex-
tracted from him a pledge or masonic obligation to ab-
stain from brandy and smoking, which he had every
reason to know he kept till he left France about May
last. He (the O'Gorman Mahon) was in Paris when
Mr. Brettell met with the accident which preceded his
his death, and called at his house immediately on hearing
of it, but was nat allowed to see him. He inquired the
state of his health of Dr. M'Carthy, who was attending
Mr. Brettell, and Dr. M'Carthy said Mr. Brettell had
met with an accident of a trivial nature. He did not
attach any serious importance to if. The general im-
pression in the society in which the witness moved was,
that Mr. Brettell had met with foul play and had
been murdered. It was the general topic of conver-
sation in Paris. On going to the house of the de-
cesved on the Sunday after his death he found Mr.
Pemberton, Mr. Thomas Cratwell, and the plain-
tiff there. He stated there were sinister rumours as
to Mr. Brettell's death—a statement which the plaintiff
in reply pooh poohed, said he would soon settle that,
that Mr. Brettell died of concussion of the brain, and
that he would sign a certificate to that effect; and he
added that he was a man of celebrity in cases of the
brain in England, and in all brain cases his certificate in
England would be taken to be conclusive. Witness said
such might be the case in England but would not be so
in Paris, and that there was a much better way, which
would only take a few minutes. Mr. Crat well said
"How I" He replied, by Dr. M'Carthy and Dr. Jones
making an examination of the body in the next room,
which would only take a few minutes. Dr. Junes im-
patiently rejected the idea, saying, "'Our certificate will
be quite sufficient." They all left the room and went
down stairs, and on getting into the street they met Dr.
M'Carthy and Mr. E . Burdett approaching. Some con-
versation passed, and Dr. M'Carthy said he was quite
at a loss to know for what purpose Mr. Burdett had
brought him up there from Lis own house. Witness
said he presumed it must have been for the purpose of
Pung a certificate with Dr. Jones tied poor Brettell
1:1;tef concussion of the brain, upon which Dr.
tviblaeltooked at him with astonishment, and in-
quired
first stated
rceoptdhabve induced him to entertain such a
re
in tpheatding to him what the plain-
tiffn notion, i ohna.
e
Dr. M`Carthy said nothing would induce drawing-room, on ,
pim"towifliich
such a certificate, inconsistent as it was with the trutu.gl
They then separated. In consequence of something he
had learnt from the servants before they left the draw. I

in;;-room to come down stairs, he spoke to the plaintiff
in an inquiring manner as to the nature of a powder
which he had administered to Brettell. Plaintiff replied
that it was his usual powder, which witness had already
known of, and that he had brought it over with him.
He added, "My secret, you know ; my old powder.'i
They had often conversed about this powder before,
when Dr. Jones had told him it was his secret, and
a terrible poison, that it was his own secret, and wit-
ness always gave him credit for it as some famous dis-
covery which Dr. Jones wished to take credit for. It
was true that some friends of Mr. Brettell enter-
tained suspicions that the cause of his death had
not been truly stated, and he as one of his friends
took steps t) ensure an investigation. He went to the
Procureur Imperial's residence, and made a statement,
and was subsequently present when the body was
exhumed at Pere-la-Chaise. Witness had from the Com-
missary of Police and subsequently from the Juge d'ln-
struction an intimation that Dr. Jones was ordered not
to leave Paris in consequence of what had occurred.
Witness was not the author of the article in the Daily
News, and did not know who wrote it. On one occasion
plaintiff said to William, one of Mr. Brettell's servants,
" William, we are accused of murdering your master,"
and witness replied, " No, William, neither I nor any
of the public ascribe any blame to you orany of the other
servants." This was about two days before the funeral.
He was still urging the plaintiff to have a post-mortem
examination which led to his observation to William.

D. J. M`Carthy, examined by Mr. Lush—l am a doc-
tor of the French Faculty of Medicine and practise in
Paris. The late Mr. Brettell was introduced to me in
Oct. or Nov., 1855. I attended him professionally. In
April, 1856,1 attended him for delirium tremens, caused
by intemperance. He recovered. I did not attend him
after till he met with his accident in Oct., and I only saw
him once in the interval. While I was attendinghim for
delirium tremens in April, Dr. Jones, the plaintiff, came
over. I had never heard of Dr. Jones before. On the
26th of Oct. I was sent for to attend Mr. Brettell. It
was oa a Sunday, at 5 o'clock in the afternoon. Mr.
Brettell hal been to some races, and being a kind man,
he placed a groom who had met with an accident on his
own brougham and came home at the back of a dog-cart,
driven by his: friend Mr. Burdett. He fell from the dog-
cart in a sort of a race which was established between
the dog-cart and a carriage. I found him in bed. He was
sensible. The right eye was much bruised. The left
wrist was sprained. He had contusions of the knees,
and was much bruised by the fall. His pulse was low
and the skin was cold. On referring to my diary I find
his pulse was 70. Ido not refer to the quickness of the
pulse when I say it was low. He requested that the
trowsers he had on at the accident should be fetched to
be shown to me, and that a bag of sovereigns should be
brought him. I saw him again the same evening. He
was better, his skin had warmed, and he was more com-
fortable. On the Monday he was better still. On the
Tuesday morning, at four o'clock, I was summoned to
see him. He was very restless. He had no sleep. He
was not fevtaish, but he complained of a sense of stran-
gulation in the throat. I stepped into the drawing-
room to write a prescription for him, and while I was
doing so, and his servant William was standing by, we
both heard a scream. We immediately rushed into his
bed-room, and found him in an epileptic fit. It lasted
from a minute and a half to two minutes. I saw him
again shortly afterwards, I was told he had had a se-
cond fit. His pulse that day was 68. I saw him three
or four times on the Tuesday, and he was better. On
the Wednesday his condition had changed entirely. He
bad assumed then all the appearance of a person with
delirium tremens. After two sleepless nights, on Wed-
nesday morning he had illusions which became delusions
in the course of the day. I mean that in the morning
he was able to correct the errors of sense, but in the
evening he was not able to correct those mistakes. His
appetite was not bad, bat he never did eat much. His
pulse is marked 72, and "no feverishness." On the
Wednesday, in the morning, he was dry-cupped at the
back of the neck, and he had one or two seidlitz pow-
ders that day. He had cold applications to his head ;
he had weak wine and water, and mustard poultices
were applied to his legs. It is usual to administer
opium in cases of this kind. I did not give him a single
particle. I had bean cautioned against the use of opium
in this particular case by Dr. Jones, who told me in
April that he had previously used it on this individual
with the worst effects. In the evening considerable
violence was manifested by him, and the delusions were
that of that character that I thought he might commit
suicide. I thought he might throw himself out of the
window, and I applied the strait waistcoat which was
kept in the hone ready for such occasions. Dr. Jones
told me he bad put it on Mr. Brettell on previous occa-
sions. Mrs. Cunningham on that day suggested that
Dr. Jones should be sant for. If she had not. I should
have demanded a consultation in Paris. Mrs. Cunningham
informed me on Wednesday evening that she had sent for
him. I went to see Mr. Brettell on the Thursday morn-
ing between 9 and 10. I find this in my diary, " Has bad
no sleep, continues delirious, skin moist, pulse 72." He
had a bath that day ; he bad an involuntary evacuation
in the bath. I administered two seidlitz powders only
that day. I saw him four times that day. He was suffer-
ing more than ever from delirium tremens. He was vio-
lent at times, but was agitated rather than violent. He
was not in a state of coma that day. I called on him at
half-past 9on Friday morning. Dr. Jones had arrived
15 or 20 minutes before. Dr. Jones and I, after the first
greetings, had immediately a difference of opinion on the
nature of the case, he being disposed to attribute all the
symptoms to the concussion of the brain only, whilst the
case appeared to me to be one of delirium tremens. He
then informed me that he had given Brettell an efferves-
cing draught, a circumstance which I considered to be
of no iznpor'sance.
Did he say what it was ; a draught, an effervescing
draught f—ile spoke lightly— a draught, an effervescing
draught.
State precisely—At this distance of time it is difficult
to recollect precisely; but I believe it was an effervescing
draught. I put down in my diary " Seidlitz powder,
which was not administered by me." He was feverish. I
have no note of the pulse, but believe it was 68. All
Thursday it was 72. He knew me when taken by the
hand. He vomited while I was there, once only. I re-
turned to the house at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. Before
that I found on my table a paper which I now produce,
and which I believe to be in Dr. Jones's writing. I
found it about half-past 12. [The paper was read. It
purported to be a certificate signed by Dr. Jones, that
Mr. Brettell had died in a fit of epilepsy in his presence
at 7 minutes past 12.] I saw Dr. Jones about 4 o'clock.
We had no conversation then about the cause of death.
I had been sent for by him to explain to the physician
sent by the authorities the reality of the death, the na-
ture of the ease, and the treatment. The physician
did not come while I was there. I left a paper, in order
that the French physician should collect from it the
details necessary to state the cause of death. I had some
conversation with Dr. Jones. I should explain that it
is necessary that the physician should state the exact
nature of the case. Dr. Jones said it would be more
satisfactory to the feelings of the family if delirium tre-
mens was not mentioned. I said nothing in reply to
that. I heard nothing said that day about a post mor-
tem examination. I next saw Dr. Jones on the Tuesday
following, in the afternoon, at the door of Mr. Brettell's
house. I had brought Mr. Robert Burdett with me.
Dr. Jones was coming out of the house, accompanied
by the O'Gorman Mahon, Mr. Pemberton, and Mr.
Cratwell. We exchanged a few words. Dr. Jones re-
marked, " We shall have to give a certificate regarding
the cause of Mr. Brettell's death." He added, or words
to this effect—" His life was insured, and we had better
say nothing about delirium tremens." I looked at Dr.
Jones with some surprise, and said—" What do you or
I care whether the company pay the money or not I
We cannot give such a certificate," meaning one that
would omit the mention of delirium tremens. He said
nothing more, and I never heard another word about a
certificate. No one at that meeting suggested a certifi-
cate that death arose from concussion of the brain. I
was never prepared to certify that concussion of the
brain was the cause of death. It was certainly not the
cause of death, at least not in a direct manner, but it
preceded and in some degree occasioned the symptoms
which were the more immediate cause of death. I next
saw Dr. Jones on the Tuesday following at the house of
Mrs. Cunningham. I was asked to come. I met Dr.
Jones, Mr. Cratwell, Mr. Pemberton, and several other
persons, Mr. R. Burdett and his brother, I believe,
amongst them. There were two subjects of conversa-
tion, first a general conversation and a private one
between myself and Dr. Jones. Dr. Jones heard
the general conversation, which was concerning
the unpleasant rumours as to the manner by which
Mr. Brettell had come to his death. I said I
thought a post mortem examination should be made.
Dr. Jones agreed with me entirely. I recollect Mr.
Cratwell saying that is the proper course to be
taken in the matter. In my private conversation with
Dr. Jones I asked him to tell me what the powder was
he had given to Mr. Brettell before my arrival. After
some. hesitation he said, " Well, I don't mind telling
you. I brought in my waistcoat pocket a grain and a
half of tartar emetic, and I gave him one-half of it." Up
to that time I had not the most distant idea of what it
was he had given him. Immediately on leaving Mrs.
• Cunningham's house, I proceeded to the commissary of
police, and as he was not at home.' saw his secretary.
Mr. Brettell was buried on the 6th Nov. I attended the
funeral. He had been embalmed. That is frequent
when there is any object in preserving the body. It is
done by the injection of a fluid into the carotid artery.
Mr. Burdett, Mrs. Cunningham's brother, had had it
done. The post mortem examination was made two days
after by order of the authorities. I was present. Dr.
Tardieu made the examination. Dr. Jones also was
there. On the head being opened, the brain and its mem-
branes were exposed. There was no change in the colour
of the surface of the general envelope, the dura mater.
On that being detached in order to remove the brain, a
considerable quantity of fluid of a light red colour ran
from the lower part of the brain. There was no clotted
blood, but on the surface of the hemispheres there was a
dark colour due to chronic disease, and there was adhe-
sion of the membranes to the substance of the brain in
the parts corresponding to that colour. The brain wee
put into a jar by itself, and the commissary of police
took charge of it. In another jar was put a portion of
the liver, which was diseased, the lungs, and the intes-
tines. The presence of the red liquor on the brain was
quite irreconcileable with the symptoms I had observed
during life. There were five or six ounces of it, which
must have produced pressure.

Did you form any opinion of how it got there ?—lt is
impossible to say, but I should be much inclined to con•
jecture that the force of the engine employed to inject
the fluid into the carotid artery had contributed to it. If
the liquid had been there during life we should have had
more or less stupor. I saw none of these symptoms, hurt
the contrary. On the Thursday evening, the day of the
funeral, Dr. Jonas told me he had been summoned to
a'tend the commissary of police. He did not tell me
afterwards what he did when with the commissary of
police. On:the evening of the post 'portent examination he
said, " I am going„tbid evening. I asked the commissary

of police if I might go, and he said certainly, you have
got out of it with great eclat." This was on the Bth. I
lived about three-quarters of a mile from the house of
Mr. Brettall. When a medical man is called in to see a
patient who had already been attended by another medi-
cal man, it is very unusual that he should prescribe before
seeing the first medical man.
What eflect would the administering a quarter of a
grain of tartar emetic on the patient have in his state ?
It lowered him.

....
Had it in your judgment any connexion with his
death ?—I did not see Mr.Brettellafter. 9 o'clock.

Had it any connexion with his death ?—By lowering
the system it is possible that it might hasten the termina-
tion of the case that was already very serious indeed.
Would anything that tended to lower the system en-
danger the life of the patient ?—lt might it render more
precarious.
By the Judge—ln your judgment did it kill the man
or not ?—that is a plain question.
Witness (after a pause)—l certainly think it hastened
the end of the patient.
That you have already told us. You are a medical
man, and your judgment will be exposed to criticism on
both sides. If you can form a judgment, give it.
Witness—Well, my lord, I think it did.
Did what ?—lt hastened his end.
Mr. Lush —lf you had been consulted should you
I have permitted that medicine to be given I—Certainly
not.

The Judge—The idea of asking a medical man who
has just told you that a certain medicine had hastened
the death, if he would have permitted it to be given I I
should not have noticed it, Mr. Lush, so strongly if it
were not an abuse of tde position you have earned so
well.

Cross. examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—On the Thurs.
day morning when you said you were inclined to think
the plaintiff said he ova him an effervescing draught, did
he not say he gave him his usual draught?
Witness—l think he said his usual effervescing
draught.
Did he say his usual draught ?—No.
Is this your handwriting—" He told me he had given
Mr. Brettell his usual draught 1"—I dreamt so little of
this containing anything more than the usual effervescing
powder that I wrote in my book seidlitz powder.
The Judge—Then you now have it recalled to your
recollection that the words used by him were his usual
draught ?—Yes.
By Mr. Serjeant Byles—Dr; Tardieu is of the highest
possible reputation and skill. He conducted the post
mortem examination. The document produced is in his
handwriting. It was written three months after the
examination.

---Mr. Hill objected to the production of the document,
and Serjeant Byles withdrew it.
Cross-examination continued...l do not know whether
Dr. Tardieu is here. It is usual in such cases for the
medical officer to •make a report to the official who has
directed him to perform the operation. I had no dis-
agreement with Dr. Tardieu on the cause of death. We
differed in opinion, but did not express our opinions.
There was no ground for suspecting poison. Before the
examination I expressed an opinion that any such suppo-
sition was perfectly monstrous. It was I and Dr. Jones
who jointly assisted in the examination. There was no
more ground for suspecting that he had poisoned him
than that I had. There was an old lesion of the brain.
That was not complicated under the influence of a fall
with an eflu4on of the blood :nto the membranes that
enveloped the brain. We did not detect any trace in the
brain of an effect from the fall. The fall had an influence,
bnt it might have produced a functional, not an anato-
mical change. I will swear the fall did not produce an
effusion of blood on the membranes which envelope the
brain, nor any inflammation which led to an effusion of
serum. The name serum may be given to the fluid that
I saw. It is the only name that can be given to it. The
consequence of inflammation is the production of serum.
Chloride of zinc is used for embalming the body. The
fluid was not examined or tested. I cannot give any
case in which a body has been embalmed in which the
substance used in embalmiug is found under the dura
mater. It is very rare to make a post mortem examina-
tion after embalming. I never did before. Embalming
is a very modern process.
What is the composition of tartar emetio I—lt is a

compound of tartrate of potass and antimony ; a very
common medicine indeed. I have given it myself in
cases of delirium tremens. It may have been strongly
recommended by Dr. Greenwood, but it is not com-
monly used. Ido not know that it has been used in
much larger doses. It acts very much on the skin. On
the Thursday Mr. Brettell was kept down in bed by a
sheet strapped across. These precautions were necessary,
because he was a very powerful, strong man.

By Mr. Serjeant Byles—l find in your memorandum
there is this statersent—" Dr. Jones told m• he had

given him what he called his usual draught." Yes. I
have no memorandum of his vomiting. I do not know
what it was be vomited in. I was present and his ser-
vant William Willis. He ran for the hand-basin or ves-
sel. I have expressed dissatisfaction with Dr. Jones
prescribing for him before seeing me. I know Mr.
Clancy and the 0 Gorman Mahon. There Ihad been a
misunderstanding between the Burdetts and the O'Gor-
man Mahon and Clancy. The O'Gorman Mahon and
Clancy had been forbidden the house.
By Mr. know it by a paper which was shown
to me in Mr. Brettell's writing, forbidding his servants
to admit them. The English lady mentioned in the libel
I suppose refers to Mrs. Cunningham. Mr. Brettell ap-
peared to be on excellent terms with her and both the
Burdetts. I have spoken of rumours that prevailed in
Panie. The O'Gorman Mahon and Clancy were con-
cerned in these rumours. I heard them from many
persons.
By Mr. Lush—l should always give tartar emetic
with some sort of stimulant, and in much smaller
doses than three-quarters of a grain. I have said that
that there was no ground for imputing poison. I meant
criminally. There was no ground after the examination
for saying there was either accidental or criminal poison.
Mr. Frederick Carpenter Spey, examined by Mr.
Hill—l am one of the senior surgeons of St. Bartho-
lomew's, and have been in practice many years. I have
had considerable practice is cases of delirium tremens,
and also in concussions of the brain where there has
been effusion. I heard the description given by Dr.
M`Carthy of the condition of Mr. Brettell on the morn-
ing of Friday, and that three-quarters of a grain
of tarter emetic was given to him. In my judgment
the effect of such a dose would be prostration of the
system.
Would that have any effect in hastening his death
There cannot be much doubt of that, supposing the
description of his condition to be correct. It tended
to reduce the vital powers, and the result you can tell,
The Judge—That is just what we wish you tell.
Witness—And that is what I am unwilling to tell,
unless you compel me to do it,
The Judge—Then I do.
Witness—Then I think it would accelerate death.
The Jude—May I ask what is the object of this exa-

mination ?
Mr. Hill.—All I wish to show is that there were these
rumours, and in consequence that there was an investi-
gation. It is to show that the paragraph was not writ-
ten without grounds.
The Judge—That has nothing to do with this part of
the case. lam assuming that he is accused of murder
or manslaughter. It has nothing to do with it that he
does not ask for an explanation.
Mr. Hill—ln opening, I said I could not carry it fur-
ther than an error of judgment.
The Judge—l have not the least desire to check you
in it. Go on with it. Two different views may be
taken with regard to this evidence.
Examination resumed—Mr. Hill—lf there had been
effusion of the brain, would you have given this me-
dicine ?
Witness—Certainly not.
Cross-examined by Mr. Serjeant Byles—l approve of
Dr. M'Carthy's treatment under the circumstanees. He
was prohibited from the use of the best remedy, opium.
Supposing there had been effusion of the brain, there was
nothing injudicious in the treatment. I have known
Dr. Jones several years. Ido not think there is a great
difference of opinion at the present day as to the effects
of tartar emetic. It is a medicine that has been largely
experimented upon, but Ido not know that there have
been great discrepancies of opinion upon it. Both
among French and English writers 1 believe there have
been great controversies as to the action of that medi-
ciee. I do not know that the modern opinion is that
it is not near as active as it was once thought to be.
By Mr. Hill—l have never heard of a case in which
so much as three-quarters of a grain has been ad-
ministered, _ _

Mr. Saninel Solly—l am one of the senior surgeons at
St. Thomas's Hospital. I have heard the evidence of
Mr. Skey, and agree with it in the main.
Mr. Sergeant Byles—Are you the author of "Death
in the PiPe (A laugh.) Witness—No ; but some ob-
servations I made in one of my clinical lectures have led
to a controversy about smoking.
You are of opinion that people die after it. (Laugh-
tpr.)—Yes, they do. I think it very injurious. I have
seen much of the effect of giving 'tartar emetic in cases
of deliriura tremens. The term delirium tremens is
given, but there aro two different diseases to which that
name is given. In one a stimulus should be given, in
the other not. If a man is mad drunk it is well to give
tartar emetic, but if he has delirium tremens from for-
mer intoxication that medicine would be injurious.
Is such a dose as this too large I—Much too large, es-
pecially in a case of epilepsy, because you do not wish
to produce sickness.
Mr. C. W. G. Guthrie—l was one of the surgeons of
Westminster Hospital, but resigned in consequence of
ill health. I have heard the evidence of Dr. Skey, and

agree with it. •
An extrtct from the registry of the Tribunal of the
First Instance of the Department of the Seine was then
put in anc read, consisting of the examination of the
plaintiff, which was to the effect ths4t he had attended
the deceased for four er five years for delirium t
that the deceased was addicted to drunkenne,ll, which
produced with him great delirium ; that he had conic tot
Paris twice to attend him, and there cured him ; tha
Mr. Burdett informed him by telegraph on Wednesday'
in the previous week that Mr. Brettell required him im-
about ter, o'clock, and found the in.. tremens ;
im-
mediately. He was not in London that day, and was
that he arrived
not able to start till Thursday evening ;
ahlawda.ny
so twbei
the n
him;to t h
tended by Dr M`Carthy ; that he asked him Wl-
v,at he had
onlyi a d
b ableee n to t-
administered, and had been well satisfied with whai .thir!
physician had prescribed. That knowing the inva;:4
tehwatatmerr-.clßosreettfteoiri three days, days, be had
prepared s medicine with the remedy which he carried
take part, and that he died two hours afterwards of con-
gestion of the brain, complicated with a fit of epilepsy,
This wts the case for the defence.

Mr. Sergeant Byles submitted that there was no evi-
dence to go to the jury in justificatiop, and the other
issues in point of law.

After some discussion tho judge overruled the objeo.

tion, and the following evidence was then given on the
part of the plaintiff :
Mr. Edward Heyward examined by Mr. Keene—l
formerly held a commission in the 17th Lancers. I
knew the late Mr. Brettell. I was on the Lamarche
racecourse on the evening of Sunday, the 26th of Octo-
ber. He came home in his own dog-cart. Besides Mr.
Brettell there were myself, Mr. Robert Burdett, and
Mr. Brettell's groom in the dog-cart. Mr. Robert Bur-
dett drove, and I sat beside him, and Mr. Brettell sat
behind Mr. Robert Burdett. There was no racing. I
recollect the occurrence of the accident. Just before
Mr. Brettell had been standing up talking to Mr. Bur-
dett. I cannot say whether he had resumed his seat. I
felt the motion of the dog-cart as if something was off.
Mr. Burdett said, Brettell is down. He stopped. I
jumped down and ran to where he was lying. I found
him lying with his race on the ground. He was perfectly
insensible. He had . been driving at the rate of seven
miles an hour. With the assistance of his groom, I got
him up and loosened his handkerchief. He would weigh
about fifteen stone. He had a bruise over the eye. We
lifted him into a cab, and I went into the cab with him.
He became insensible in the archway, about half a mile
from the place of the accident. When be got home he
was perfectly sensible, and walked up the stairs without
any assistance.

Win. Willis examined by Mr. Sergeant Byles—l was
in the service of the late Mr. Brettell, at Paris, and at-
banded upon him during his illness. I was constantly
with him. I remember Dr. Jones coming. Dr. Wear-
thy came to see him the same day. I did not see Mr.
Brettell vomit, and it is not correct that I fetched a
vessel for him to vomit in.

Croas-examined by Mr. Hill—l lived with Mr. Bret-
tell nine years. I am in the service of Mrs. Cunningham
now, and here been so since Mr. Brettell's death. I was
sent to prove this by Mrs. Cunningham. I remember
Dr. Jones giving Mr. Brettell a powder; Mr. Burdett
administered it in water. Dr. Jones took it out of a
paper with a spoon.
By Mr. Sergeant Byles—l do not know whose house it
was, whether Mr. Brettell's or Mrs. Cunningham's. Mr.
Brettell used to come two or three times a week, and
sometime dined there, and entertained his friends there.
At one time the O'Gorman Mahon and Clancy were
intimate with Mr. Brettell, but they had a quarrel.
Examination resumed—That intimacy had ceased in
that month. The Burdetta and Mrs. Cunningham had
also been intimate with him. The intimacy of the O'Gor-
man Mahon and Mr. Clancy ceased with Mr. Brettell,
and also with the Burdett3 and Mrs. Cunningham.
Directions were given to me that the O'Gorman Mahon
and Mr. Clancy should not be admitted to the house.
Cross•examined by Mr. Hill—The O'Gorman Mahon
attended the funeral. He met us at the door. Mr. Bret-
tell bad been intimate with Mrs. Cunningham all the
time I was in his service. Mr. Cunningham, I believe, is
in Australia. The O'Gorman Mahon did not attend the
funeral. He followed down the Champs Elysees, and
forced his way into a carriage, and I believe went away.
Dr. W. Jones—l am the plaintiff in this case. lam
in my 76th year, and have practised physic 52 years. I
knew Mr. Brettell six or seven years. I attended him
medically from May or April,lBs4. I have attended him
several times for delirium tremens brought on by exces-
sive drinking, and I have administered tartar emetic
always when required. In my judgment that is a proper
medicine to administer, and he derived benefit from it
almost instantly. I was sent for from Paris, and arrived
at Mr. Brettell's house on Friday morning about ten.
I asked his friend Mr. Burdett what had been the mat-
ter, and he told me Mr, Brettell had been thrown from
a carriage, coming from Lamarche races on the Sunday
afternoon ; that he was taken up insensible, and that
after he had become sensible he had always complained
of a weight on his head ; that he had sent for Dr.
M'Carthy, and that be had washed the blood from him
and put him to bed ; that on Monday night he became
restless ; that on Tuesday morning he had two fits,
and had had a draught administered to him. I
learned that that draught contained belladonna.
Mr. Burdett told me he had been raving mad all
night. I asked Willis when his bowels were last
relieved, and he said since the Wednesday, in the bath.
I learned afterwards it was Thursday. When I first
went into the room he was in a straight waistcoat, and
convulsively struggling to get out of bed. I ordered
him some toast and water, and then ordered a saline
draught, which was always prepared, expecting Dr.
M'Carthy to come every minute but he not coming
after I had waited half an hour I gave him a draught
which I had often given him as a purgative. I had a
grain and a half of tartarised antimony in my pocket.
I divided it in half and gave it to Mr. Burdett in some
water, and he gave it to Mr. Brettell in a saline draught.
What I mixed was tartar emetic with white sugar. I
went to Mr. Burdett and told him unless the brain was
immediately relieved Mr. Brettell's life was not worth
an hour's purchase. I desired a postmortem examina-
tion to be made. I was present at the post mortem ex-
amination. When the skull cap was removed and the
dura mater cut through, there was a quantity of blood
coagulated and serous. Had a person been bled and
the blood been shaken in a teacup it would have pre-
sented the same appearance. I have no doubt it was
blood from the blow. There was no difference of opi-
nion between me and Dr. Tardieu. I have no doubt
that the cause of his death was the fall from the car-
riage, which produced extrayasation of blood on the
brain. Under these circumstances, in my judgment the
medicine I administered was proper. The only chance
was to act on the bowels. Dr. M'Carthy agreed with
me in that, and if that did not act we agreed to use
croton oil. I was never under surveillance and ordered

not to quit Paris. I never said to O'Gorman Mahon
that the powder was my secret and was a terrible poison.
He did not vomit.

Cross•examined by Mr. Hill.—Tartar emetic,
of course, will produce sickness, if given in doses
large enough. I have practised medicine for
fifty-two years. I was a general practitioner for
forty years. lam not a member of the Apothe-
caries' Company, or the College of Physicians, nor a
graduate of either of the universities. I took out a di-
ploma from Giessen. I commenced practising before the
Apothecaries' Act passed. Mr. Brettell had been under
the influence of intoxicating liquors when I administered
tartar emetic. I take it in my pocket on occasions. I
have frequently used this medicine as a purgative.
Why did you not tell Mr. M'Carthy you had used it
—Mr. Burdett and I thought him in great danger, and I
told Mr. M'Carthy I had given him the usual draught,
and my intention was to follow it up with croton oil. I
did not tell Mr. M'Carthy, because I did not think of it
at the time. I expected Mr. Brettell would die in his
next fit, and he did. I first ordered toast and water and a
saline draught, and his bowels not being moved, I gave
the tartar emetic in another saline draught. Croton oil
is the strongest purgative. I did not send out for croton
oil. We bad no time. He died in about half an hour. I
got there at 10 o'clock, not at 9. The train was not in
at 9. I have not stated before that I was in at a quarter
. . .

past 9. I signed a certificate that he died at seven
minutes past 12, and I had taken no steps to get the
croton oil. The tartar emetic did not prostrate him. He
struggled afterwards. I had never, when I attended him,
used the straight waistcoat. I told Dr. M'Carthy that
I considered he was in danger from extravasation of
blood, and Dr. M'Carthy did not agree with me.
Re-examined—There was no appearance of prostration

when I saw him. I have regularly attended tlie hospitals,
and had the regular education of an English practitioner.
Wm. Johnson—l am a staticner, residing in Paris. I
remember accompanying Dr. Jones to the office of the
Commissary of Police on the 6th Nov. I acted as inter-
preter.
By Mr. Hill—What was stated was put in writing 1
—Yes.
Mr. Hill—That is the document I put in.
The Judge—lf there is anything ultra, why should
we not hear it ?
Examination resumed—When we got there Dr. Jones
sent in a paper, and the commissary came and said there
had been a question as to what had been given to the
deceased. Dr. Jones said he wished to leave that even-
ing, and the commissary said he had no right to detain
him, but if he were, he would wait till he had seen
the result of the examination. After the investigation,
the commissary said to Dr. Jones, "After gaining so great
a victory, you ought to be delighted at not having gone
away." Dr. Jones said he would not have been absent
for 1001.;" and he added, "I suppose I am now at liberty
to leave Paris?" and the commissary replied, "Certainly;
I never had any reason to say you should not leave."
By Mr. Hill—He was asked by the commissary what
it was he had given him. Dr. Jones said be could not
give it phinly, he could give it in Latin; and the com-
missary said, "Then I will take it in Latin," and he took
the pen and wrote. I did not hear Lim say he had none
of the powder left.
Mr. R. Partridge—l am Professor of Anatomy at
King's College. I have heard the evidence of Dr. Wear-
thy and the evidence of the plaintiff. From the evidence
I have no doubt that the liquid on the brain was blood
and serum. I do not think it could be the liquid injected
for embalming. Embalming is common in this country
in schools of medicine. I have never beard an instance
of the embalming liquid appearing on the brain. It fre-
quently occurs that a person rallies from a concussion of
the brain, and then subsequently extravasation of blood
ensues and death. In cases of delirium tremens some
constitutions could not bear opium. I have no experience
in administering tartarlemetic, but it has been so strongly
recommended that, failing opium, I should have recourse
to it.
By Mr. Hill—Do I understand that you would use
tartar emetic where you expected there was extravasation
on the brain?—No. I should use it to open the bowels
in moderatejloses. When e there is extravasation of blood
there is always coma some time before death. The coma-
tose condition is one of the strongest
~symptoms of pres-
sure on the brain; but they are very like delirium tre-
mens. They die much in the same way.
Dr. H. Letheby—l am professor of chemistry and toxi-
cology in the London Hospital. The periods vary much
between the comatose state and death, according to effu-
sion. I have heard the evidence, and do not see anything
improper under those circumstances in the administration
of three-quarters of a. grain of tartar emetic. I have
known it given in ten-grain doses, for the purpose of
quieting delirium. I have seen the brain moistened with
the liquid used for embalming, but chloride of zinc is so
distinct from serum that no medical man would be mis-
taken e, sto which fluid it was. Generally tartar emetic
would have a lowering effect • but if it were known that
it had been administered before with success, then 1
should say three quarters of a grain was not an improper
dose.
‘ilrli.eHwilolutlhdefinrrstepelaied
llthuepiornatthteenptilaoninttoitrs evidence.
facts He
concerning
was no dispute. It was quite clear that Mr.
injury by a fall from his dog-cart,
home his consciousness was
stairs. The cireu
1 the Friday

satu
which then, .
Brettell receivect
and that when he arrived at,
restored, and he was able to walk up
stances that occurred between that time au, -
morning were also without controversy, and that
Jones arrived on the morning of Friday, that he admi, t tn.a,
nistered, in the first instance, tcast and water, then what been a fists►,--
he called the usual saline draught which Mr, Bredell he 'doubted 114

was in the habit of taking. It was of importance to re-
member that this was a seidlitz powder, and that Dr.
M'Carthy made a memorandum of it, and it was not till
the Tuesday after that he told Dr. M 'earthy what it was
he had administered. Another fact which was not con-
tradicted was that this powder, being administered be-
twee❑ 9 and 10, Mr. Brettell died at 7 minutes after 12,
and that Dr. Jones certified that he died of epilepsy. It
was also not controverted that many persons spoke of
this matter as one of considerable suspicion, and an
order was made for the disinterment of the body that a
post mortem examination might take place. Then they
found from the proceedings before the Tribunal of the
First Instance that Dr. Jones was sent for by the prefect
in order that he might give an explanation of what
had taken place, and that he was not the party laying
the information. The evidence of the O'Gorman
Mabon had been laid before them, in which he distinctly
stated that he gave the information, and Dr. M'Carthy'
said that on the Tuesday after learning that the white
powder had been given he immediately went to the
commissary of police. Dr. Jones was sent for. It was
stated that he desired a post mortem examination, that
he ought to leave that evening, but he would attend the
orders of justice as to leaving Paris. Tnen they found
that after the post mortem examination had taken place
Dr. Jones asked if he might then leave Parr, and he
was congratulated on the mode in which the inquiry bad
ended and told he might leave. Therefore they found
these facts, Dr. Jones sent for, his examination taken
down iu judicial form, and undertaking that he would
attend the orders of justice and after the post mortem
examination, he asked for and obtained leave to quit
Paris. So much for the points on which there was no
controversy. Now, let them see what were the points
on which there was a controversy. The O'Gorman Ma-
hon said he asked Dr. Jones what was the white powder
and he replied that was his secret, and that it was a po-
tent poison. Dr. Jones denied that, but then he was
deeply interested in this inquiry. But Dr. M'Carthy
said Dr. Jones said to him, " I don't mind telling it to
you what it was I gave him." Further, the O'Gorman
Mahon said Jones offered to give a certificate that death
was caused by concussion of the brain, and that Dr.
M'Carthy said he would not join him in it.
The Judge—Then you should also state that the O'Gor-
man Mahon said Dr. M'Carthy refused to join in such
certificate, and that Dr. 11I`Carthy said here no such pro-
posal was ever made to him.
Mr. Hill said it was all perfectly consistent with what had
been sworn to to-day. Then what further statement in
the paragraph was there that was true ? It was true that
Dr. Jones finally wrote a prescription of what the white
powder was composed. The paragraph added that in
the meantime Dr. Jones was ordered not to leave Paris,
and that he was under the surveillance of the police.
He put it to the jury whether that was not substantially
true. According to the plaintiff's own evidence he said
he would attend the orders of justice.
The Judge—But look a little at the dates. This letter
is written after the post mortem examination.
Mr. Hill said that was true, but the writer could not
know of the conversation which took place in the car-
riage, after the examination had taken place, when he
asked if he might now leave Paris, and the commissary
said he might. Suppose they should give a verdict for
the plaintiff, the circumstances all tended to show that
there was no malice on the part of the defendant. He
now came to the medical evidence. Yesterday, when he
opened the case, he laboured under this disadvantage,
that he did not know his friend's case, but he saw good
reason to-day why his friend had not called witnesses
before. It was a very great object that Dr. Jones's
medical evidence should not be called till after the medi-
cal evidence for the defendant had been heard. Was
this the conduct of a man who desired a full investigation
into his case! They had this fact proved, that there
were many persons who thought that in cases of delirium
tremens tartaric emetic was a desirable medicine when a
man was suffering from drunkenness, and it was desirable
to produce prostration, but that if it was given after-
wards it endangered the life of the patient. But he was
utterly at a loss to understand Dr. Jones's explanation
that he administered the tartar emetic to open the
bowels, with a determination to resort to castor oil if
the other medicine had not the desired effect, and yet the
tartar emetic having no effect he took no steps to get the
oil. What was this charge against him ? That he ad-
ministered a secret medicine, that death followed i❑ two
hours, and that he did it without communicating with
Dr. DlTarthy, who was attending the invalid at the
time. Was it a wonder that there were surmises that
this was not all right ? Who was to blame for that ? All
that was done by the correspondent of the Daily News
was to state these facts ; and, moreover, they were put
in the paper just as they were receive', and believing the
contents to be true.

The Judge—You must not say that, because you
could have produced the letter and have not.
Mr. Hill said, however, it was the fact that the letter
was published on the 10th Nov., and that it professed
to be a statement of events which actually did take place
on the afternoon of the previous Saturday, and therefore
there was no great stretch in asking them to believe that
it was not an invention of some person in London, but
that the conductors of the paper in London believed it to
be a statement of occurrences in Paris. Taking these
circumstances into account, was this a libel ? It was
now well settled that it was the province of a jury to
determine this. It was for the judge to define what was
a libel in law, and it was for the jury to say whether the
publication came within that class or not. He asked
them to take this publication into their hand', to look
at it in connection with that which had taken place,
giving no undue undue latitude to the newspaper, doing
justice to the plaintiff and to the defendant also ; and
he asked them, seeing that this was a statement of
facts, part of which was correct, and the remainder was
so nearly correct that there could be no doubt that this
was a bona fide relation of what took place—whether
this could be held to be a libel ? Thu next question
was, supposing they should find it to be a libel, how
far did it reflect upon Dr. Jones. Was it a fact that
he administered tartar emetic, and that he kept it a
secret ? Was it true that there were rumours that this
man bad met with foul play That undoubtedly was
true. Then was it also true that the unfortunate man
died within two hours after the administration of this
white powder It undoubtedly was true. Supposing,
however, that they came to a conclusion against the de-
fendant, what damages should they give ? He asked
them to remember that Dr. Jones bad asked for no ex-
planation ; but the publication appearing on the 10th,
had brought his action on the 13th. The defendant
made inquiries into the case. They found, and now
said, that the publication was true in substance and
effect ; but if they should not be with him in this, he
submitted that if they did give damages they should
be of the lowest possible amount.
Mr. Sergeant Byles then replied on the whole case. He
said it was true that he had justly fallen under the cen-
sure of his learned friend, that in opening this case he
had made use of only common-place remarks ; because,
as a great wit of the last century had stated, every-
thing that could be said about human manners and
human life had been already said. If his learned friend
had no other complaint to make against him
than that it did not amount to much. What he before
said was, that if a man called you a bad fellow you
should take no notice of him, but if he said you had
committed a murder you should lose no time in bring-
ing him to a court of justice to make good that imputa-
tion, or to make him pay those damages which a jury
thought ought to be awarded. His learned friend's
next .complaint was that there was no letter before
action. Now, considering that this libel was a down-
right charge of murder, which was published on the
broad wings of the Daily New to all Europe, and, as
his friend reminded him, to America also, but Europe
was enough for him, he did not think it was to be won-
dered at that the writ should have been issued without
such notice. There was a law existing' for the protec-
tion of the defendant, he meant Lord Campbell's Act,
which provided that it was competent for the defendant
before the action was brought, if he had an opportu-
nity, or after the action brought. if he had no oppor-
tunity before to make an apology, and to offer it in
evidence before the jury in mitigation of damages.
But this defendant had made no apology. On the con-
trary, he had said "I will come into court and prove
that this charge is true." But the statute went further,
and provided that in an action brought against a news-
paper for libel the defendant might plead that it was in-
serted without malice, but by negligence, and might
pay money into court as satisfaction. The defendant,
however, bad taken none of these courses • but he said
the publication was true in substance and effect ; he did
not goon and say, you committed murder, but be proved
the truth of immaterial circumstances and left the grave
charge of murder open. It was an astute but an uncandid
justification, and was intended to enable his learned friend
to say, "Although I justify everything, I never justi-
fied the charge of murder." His learned friend also said
that he should ask their verdict on the ground that
this publication did not amount to a libel. The
learned judge would tell them what was the law ;
t would be their province to decide whether this was a
libel. His learned friend said the correspondent had
only reported certain facts connected with social life in
Paris. _ _

The Judge—Matters interesting with regard to public
transactions and social life.

Mr. Sergeant Byles said with regard to public
transactions that was the privilege of the press. If
they did not take away his private character, they could
say, and did say, whnt they thought fit concerning Lord
Palmerston or any one else. It was not likely he ad-
dressed any one whose private character had been at-
tacked, but he could tell them that of all the injuries
that could be inflicted upon a man, there was nothing
that inflicted upon him such exquisite pain as an at-
tack on his private character. He could not look his
children or his relatives in the face, and he had no
remedy but an appeal to the law, and if the law pro-
tected him in his property, and not in his reputation, it
did not deserve the name of law. This gentleman, the
correspondent of this newspaper, said the plaintiff was
stated to have committed murder, but he doubted
whether it would turn out so on investigation. He did
not even say, " I have been told he has committed
murder, but I do not believe it." That there were cer-
tain reports was no ju-tification at all. The O'Gorman
Mahon said there were reports of foul play, and that
Mr. Brettell had been murdered. It was clear that a
Mr. Clancy andthe O'Gorman Mahon had been intimate
with Mr. Brettell, and that they had quarrelled, and
this might give some explanation how it was that this
extraordinary statement came to be published in the
Daily /Yezes. Mr. Brettell e as a gentleman with an
income of from 3,0001. to 4,0001. a year, but, poor fd-
low, he had to appeal to the O'Gorman Mahon for such
assistance as one freemason should give to another in a
foreign land, and he took an interest in him because he
was a mason. He doubted whether that was the true
reason. Then that other gentleman Mr. Clancy, in the
profession of nothing, was there, and there were three
other persons about Mr. Brettell—Mr. It Burdett, alio-
- Mr. Burdett, and Mrs. Cunningham, who had
4ett. They were all intimate togethtr end
".tit the society of the O'Gorman

Mahon and Mr. Clancy very much contributed to en.
liven Mr. Brettell's life. There was a misunderstandiug
among them, and the O'Gorman Mahon and Mr. Clancy
were forbidden the house. This quarrel broke out shortly
before the accident. Mr. Brettell died, and then it turned
out that he had left the greater part of his fortune to one
of the Burdetts—he meant Mrs. Cunningham. The
O'Gorman Mahon could get nothing more out of it, nor
could Mr. Clancy, and what did they find these twn gen-
tlemen did ? They went about Paris saying Mr. Bret-
tell had been murdered ; that Dr. Jones had been sent
for from London by somebody or other about Mr. Bret-
tell; that he administered to him a white powder, with
intent to produce his death, and which did produce it
within two hours. This was a charge not merely of man-
slaughter against Dr. Jones, but of murder. The writer
of this libel said, "I will be even with the Burdetts,
they have got his money, I will take away their charac-
ter." And then came the attack on Dr. Jones. It was
said that he administered a white powder, and that Mr.
Brettell died two hours afterwards. That would be pretty
well, but the writ, r went on to say that the circumstances
which were considered to call for an explanation on the
part of Dr Jones were, that he at first signed a certificates
that the deceased had died from epilepsy, that he subse-
quently stated that he and Dr. M`Carthy were both
prepared to certify that concussion of the brain was the
cause of death (the fact being that Dr. M`Carthy
declines to concur in any such certificate), " that he
has on several occasions admitted that the medicine
he administered to Mr. Brettell was a most potent one,
and that when pressed to say what it was, his only
answer That is my secret.' On being interro-
gated by the commissary of police and asked to produce
a specimen of the powder, he said he had none left, but
he finally wrote a prescription for making it up." Then
in a cowardly way the writer sought to shirk responsi-
bility by saying, " Although the circumstances call for
that thorough investigation which they will receive, I
cannot help thinking it will turn out that there has been
no wilful poisoning in the case." What he meant to
say was it would turn out that there had not been mur-
der, but that there had been manslaughter. Then came
a most scandalous statement, for which there was not
the slightest foundation, that in the meantime Dr. Jones
had been ordered not to leave Paris, and was under sur-
veillance. This was the injury which had been com-
mitted on the plaintiff, and to-day there had been this
further injury, that plaintiff bad attempted to justify his
charge, and to show that the defendant had not been
qualified for his profession. He submitted that there
had net been even an error of judgment on the part of
the plaintiff, that he did the best he could for Mr. Bret-
tell, that the various charges against him were false.
He asked them was there any justice to be had in Eng-
land ? When a man was libelled, ought he to have the
ample damages which the justice of his case required ?
And what, was to measure damages ? The character of
the plaintiff, 76 years in the world, with an unblemished
character. This libel contained the most fearful impu-
tation that could possibly be made against a man,
Looking at the manner of the publication in the broad
sheet of the Daily News—at the opportunity they bad
had of apology, which they had not made— he trusted
that the jury would find that the libel had been made
out to their entire satisfaction, and that they would give
the plaintiff ample damage.
The learned Judge then proceeded to sum up. After
stating the form of the action and the pleadings, he said
it was correctly stated at the bar that an anonymous
publication which was calculated to bring a person into
odium and disgrace was a libel. It was their province
to say whether this was a libel or not, and I should ima-
gine they would have very little difficulty in determining
whether it was calculated to bring Dr. Jones into odium
and disgrace. This communication purported to be a
letter from Paris, and if that communication were writ-
ten for the purpose of injuring another, it was undoubt-
edly a libel. It stated that the result of a judicial in'
quiry had so far confirmed the grounds for suspicion, that
the authorities had thought it right to have the body el'
burned, that a post mortem examination had been made
by Dr. Tat d.eu, and that the contents of the stomach,
the heart, liver, and lungs, enclosed in two sealed jars,
had been taken away to be examined, intimating that
the examination was still in progress, and that no fins'
opinion was formed of that which took place during the
examination. The learned judge then proceeded to rod
the remainder of the alleged libel, asking, with regard to
the latter portion, that the writer could not help thinking
that there been no wilful poisoning in the case, what that
meant ? Did it mean that the author suspected some'
thing ? It went on to state that in the meantime Pr'
Jones was ordered not to leave Paris, and was under sor"
veillance. What was the meaning of that ? Was this
statement calculated to bring Dr. Jones into odium and
contempt ? If so, it was a libel. The next question vsage
if this was a libel was it true ? With reference to that
they had heard quite enough to form a judgment. W°,°
it true, for instance, that the friends of Mr. Brettell'
having suspicions, applied for an investigation ? It ar
peared that the O'Gorman Mahon said he went to the
procureur imperial ; but beyond that they had the es'i"
dence of Mr. M'Carthy that he went to the commissar)
of police on behalf of himself and Dr. Jones, for their
satisfaction. It wastrue that Dr. Jones administered a
white powder, but it was not true Dr. M`Carthy 'sae
asked to certify that the cause of death was concussion
of the brain. On the contrary, he said he was never
asked. It was idle to say that the several parts of this
publication were true. Then the next question which arose
was the question of damages, and that was a question ea'
tirely for the jury. It was said by the counsel for the de-
fendent that it was the duty of a newspaper like the Daily
News to publish all that was interesting with regard to
public transactions and social life. In that he could not
agree. That the conductors of a newspaper in London
should think it their duty to publish the gossip and the
scandal of a foreign capital affecting the character of a
gentleman in England was to him rather startling. 0°
should have thought it their duty to take care, with re-
gard to publications of the truth or the falsehood of which
they were not in a condition to judge, and that thei,
would have followed the advice of one of the greatest 0•1
our modern poets, not—
" To let their pleasure or their pride
Give sorrow to the meanest thing that breathes." 2
They toqk the other view of their duty. He was boned
to say there was no legal view of it. They received this
as foreign news, probably from some person who was
known to them ; and, if so, they might afterwards bao
r
written for explanations. If it came anonymous') the°lt
would be the less excuse for publishing it. It had bee
observed by the counsel for the defendant, that the plat n,
tiff was rather hasty in bringing his action, and tha.b, be
0
never called on the defendants for an apology. Oa 1"
other hand it was answered that the statute la:
gave considerable assistance to those who were.
harshly and unjustly attacked, that the cond°3o
tors of the publication were allowed to make ute
apology and to lay it before a jury, or to pay moneY 1 o.
court. That course had not been pursued in this lit
The case was altogether before the jury. They w°_l3oa
consider whether the publication were a libel, t*.e,
whether the truth of it had been proved ; and if t'e/0
considered it a libel, and that the truth had not be
fit
proved, they would give such damages as they thong
it fair the plaintiff ought to receive.
of
• The jury then retired, and returned into court in abo
,e 0
ten minutes, with a verdict for the plaintiff, daolai*
1501.