Star.
London, England, 1819-05-31 00:00:00

MORRIS V. MACKINNON, M.D.

This was an action for slander. Mr. lifectrast
opened the pleadings. The declaration state', that
the plaintiff being employed in the business of an
apothecary and accoucheur, and having for many
years borne the character of a person well skilled and
qualified for such business, and having carried on
the same with great profit and advantage, the defen-
dant contriving, and intending to injure him, had
wilfully, maliciously, and without any probable cause,
uttered the following slanderous words of and con-
cerning the attendance of the plaintiff on the child
of a Mrs. Bolter, namely—" Your baby has been de-
stroyed by calomel : the pallet of the mouth, the
bones of the head, and the root of the tongue, have
been entirely destroyed by mercury," &c. by reason'
of which slander the plaintiff was greatly. injured in
his profession, his former patients having ceased to,
employ him. The defendant pleaded the general
issue—not guilty. The damages were laid at E.. 5000.
Mr. Sc A R L ET r stated the plaintiff's case, and pointed
out to the Jury the nature of the serious injury ofl
which his client had to complain. Preservation of'
character was of the highest importance to every pro-
fessional man, but more particularly to a medical
man, whose existence depended solely on the good
opinion entertained of him by society. The plaintiff
had to complain of the most serious injury that could
befall a man in his station of life—namely, the total
destruction of his professional character, by the slan-
der uttered by the defendant. Mr. Morris, the plain-
tiff, who resided in Chandos•street, Covent Garden,
had for many years carried on the business of an apo-
thecary and man-midwife, with great reptitaticn
himself and advantage to the Public. He had had a
numerous connection, and was considered a man of
griat respectability. The defendant, who resided in
the Adelphi, was a gentleman of the same profes-
sion, though in a different branch, and was a man
likewise of character and respectability—he was a
doctor of medicine. It happened that the plaintiff
had been called in to attend the family of a tradesman
some of whose children were in a state of ill-health.—
One of them had died, and another being in a dying
state, Dr. Mackinnon was desired by the parent to
give his advice; which he did, but on that occasion
he used language with respect to the plaintiff, which
reflected in au unbecoming manner upon his profes-
sional skill, and was calculated to dolim irreparable
injury. The case, however, of the plaintiff rested
alre particularly upon the slander uttered by the de-
fendant concerning him, to Mrs. Bolter, the person
named in the declaration. About the same time that
the plantiff attended the family of Mr. Defoe, he was
called in to minister to the sick child of Mrs. Bolter.
The child had been afflicted with the measles, and
becoming dangerously ill, the plaintiff was sent for;
-and he gave it such medicines as in his judgment
seemed best adapted to remove the disorder. 'the
child, however, got worse, and the mother having
procured a ticket to the Western Dispensary, to which
the defendant was Physician, the latter attended the
infant; and upon inquiring who had previously pre-
pribed for the child, and what medicines it had re-
zeived ? he was informed that the plaintiff had at-
ended, and had prescribed powders, some of which
.s'ere shewn to the defendant ; upon which he uttered
Ughly offensive language concerning the plaintiff,
cud said that the medicine given was poison. On a
,übsegent occasion, when the child died, ho uttered
.he words stated in the declaration. Such was the
:mature of the slander of which the plaintiff had to
complain--slander which was destructive not only to
its reputation, but blighted ail nis future hopes of

existence. If the case was made out in evidence, no
damages that the Jury could give would more than
compensate the plaintiff for so serious an injury.
James Defoe, a master carpenter residing in Mtn-
gerford-market, stated, that in June, 1817, Mr. Mor-
ris attended a sick child of his. The child died ; and
another of his children being affected with the same'
disease immediately after, he sent for Dr. Mackinnon,
for his advice. As soon as the hitter had seen theij
child, he said he wished witness had sent for him
sooner, but assigned no reason then for the observa-
tion. Afterwards, when the second child died, he
said, that if he had been sent for in the first instance
he would have saved both the children, or he would
have forfeited his existence; but Mr. Morris knew no
more of the inside of a man than he did.of the inside
of the moon. The defendant had attended the second
child two days before it died, and in that interval
had seen it six or seven times. Witness had known
Mr. Nlorris 16 or 17 years, and had employed him
before. He had previously lost two other children,
under the care of the latter. He had lost a fifth child
under the care oF Dr. Mackinnon himself, but it was
not afflicted, with the same disease as the others. Wit-
ness had ceased to employ the plaintiff in his family,
not solely in consequence of what the defendant had
said, but also on account of having lost fuur children
under the care of the former.

William Sidney Jones, shopman to the plaintiff,
temembered making up • some medicines for Mrs.
Bolter's child, which the plaintiff had attended. After
the child died, he remembered a conversation between
the plaintiff and the defendant, the subject of which
was a Coroner's Inquest, which was about to be held
on the body of the child. In that conversation the
defendant offered to write a letter to the Coroner,
assuring him that there was not the slightest ground
of imputation upon Mr. Moiris's medical skill; and
that the medicines given to the child‘were proper for
its disease. Such a letter was afterwards sent by the
Beadle of the Parish to the Coroner. In fact, the
plaintiff had told the witness that the defendant had
attended the Inquest, and had assured them that there
was not the slightest bound for impeaching the plain-
tiff's practice.

The witness was then asked whether the plaintiff's
practice had not been very considerable ? This ques-

tion was put, with a view to chew the general injury
which the plaintiff must sustain from the slander of
the defendant; but the Counsel for the latter objected
to the question, contending, on the authority of a
note in the first volume of Mr. Serjeant Williams's
edition of Saunders's Report, p. 'AI, that no evidence
could be given of any damage, unless it be specially
stated in the declaration. As, in an action by a
victualler for calling his wife a w—e, by which it
was averred several persons had left his house; this
was not stating the special damage.
The LORD CHIEF-JUSTICE agreed, that this was
the general rule, and it was founded on reason; for
the special damage ought to be stated in the declara-
tion, in order that the defendant might have an op-
portunity of meeting it. It was not competent, there-
fore, to adduce evidence of general damage, while
the declaration mentioned the names of only two in-
dividuals who had left the plaintiff.
Elizabeth Bolter stated, that her husband was a
barge-builder, residing at Hungerford-stairs. In July
last, Mr. Morris attended her in her lying-in, and she
was perfectly satisfied with his conduct. In the month
of December following, she had a child, taken 01 of
the measles; no medical person then attended, bbit
shortly afterwards, the child having a sore throat
and mouth, she sent for Mr. Morris, who attended it
from the 6th to the 12th of December. She had
some powders of him ; the child got worse and worse,
and she requested him to attend every day. He told
her, however, that there was no danger; but not be-
ing satisfied with him, she made interest to get a let-
ter to the Dispensary, and in consequence of that,
Dr. Mackinnon came. He came up stairs, swearing
at the darkness of the staircase. When he got to
the bed-side, he shewed the child his watch, in
order to ascertain whether it could see. He then
took some barley-water in a spoon, and gave it to
the child. He then asked who attended the child ?
and witness told him it was Dr. Morris. The defen-
dant asked, whether it was Dr. Morris of Parliament-
street? She replied, " No; it was Doctor Morris of
Chandos-street." Upon which he said, " Doctor he
d—d! he is only an Apothecary." Witness then
shewed him some of the powders the child had been
taking ; and the defendant said, it was all poison, and
that her child was entirely destroyed with calomel.
Witness asked him what calomel was? and he said,

it was mercury, and that mercury had destroyed her
child—that it had destroyed the bones of the head,
the palate, and the root of the tongue; and that he
could have saved the child if he had been sent for
sooner. lie added—" Go where I will, it is the ge-
neral cry; he," meaning the plaintiff, " serves their
children all alike. He has murdered your child."—
The child died nest day about one o'clock, and when
the defendant called, be looked at it, and taking hold
of one of its hands, said—" It is a beautiful child—l

never saw a finer child in my life. D—n his blood!
he," the plaintiff, " has wilfully murdered it with
mercury.' He told her, that if Mr. Morris sent in
his bill she was not to pay it ; for he had be ..at speak-
ing to some of the faculty, and was ready to come
forward and make oath before a Court and Jury that
lier child had been murdered. He said he would
see her righted, and desired that he should have the
plaintiffs bill when it was delivered, adding, that he
would attend her or her husband at any hour of the
day or night, or any of her family, if he was sent foe.
Her nurse was present at one of these conversations,
her husband at another, and a fellow-lodger at a
third. Witness not being satisfied, desired a Coro-
ner's Inquest to• be held on the body of her child, and
demanded justice. She had told several people that
Dr. Mackinnon had said her child was murdered. The
day the-Coroner's Inquest was to be held, the defen-
dant sent for her down stairs. He said he would not
come in, because there should be no one present but
themselves. He said—" What are you going to do
at the Globe? (the public-house where the Coroner'
was to sit)—What is all. this work about?" Witness
said it was about what he had told her, namely, that
per child had been murdered. Ile rejoined, "it will
do you no good; the child is dead, and cannot be re-
stated. This is what I get by attending poor peo-
ple's children." 'Witness had never employed the
plaintiff since.
Hannah Law, a fellow-lodger of the last
tlary Ann Robinson, her nurse; and Richard

. .
her husband; who had been present et difrorent parts
of these conversations, corroborated her statement ire
every particular.
Mr. lionoratus G. Thomas, a gurgeon, formerly
in partnership with Mr. Cruickshanks, was called to
prove that he had examined the child alter its de-
cease, and that its death was produced by a different
cause from that assigned by the defendant; but—
The Learned Judge said, there was no occasion to
iit rece've such evidence. The plaintiff' eller„ed, that
the ‘rds were falsely spoken, and the defendant by
his p a did not say that they were true.
The case of the plaintiff being closed,
Mr. GURNFX (with whom was Mr. DF.NMAN) ad-
dressed the Jury on behalf of the defendant. fie
admitted, with his Learned Friend, Mr. Scarlett, that
nothing was of more importance to a professional
man than character. On the part of his client, he
was not instructed to suggest any thing that could
in the slightest degree detract from the plaintiff's
character. Both the plaintiff and defendant were re-
spectable men in their stations in life. The Jury
could not fail to observe, it was not pretended that
on any occasion the defendant and plaintiff had had
any quarrel or misunderstanding. Nothing of that
kind was suggested. It was impossible, therefore, to
impure any malicious motive to the defendant: nei-
ther was it possible to ascribe any mercenary motives
' to his conduct, because both gentlemen were engaged
in totally distinct branches of their profession; and.
besides, as the defendant had attended from the Dis-
pensary, he 'had not received any fees. The defen-
dant had instructed him to declafe that his words
had been misunderstood and misrepresented; and the
strongest proof of the truth of his statement Was the
promptitude with which he stated to. the Coroner's
Jury that there really was no blame imputable to
Mr. Morris. There was no proof that the plaintiff
had sustained any dam age in consequence of the
slander ; for there was no per .on whb had ceased to
employ him, except Mr. Defoe and Mr. Bolter; and
according to the evidence of the former, he had not
ceased to employ him solely in consequence of what
the defendant had said. Considering, therefore, all
the circumstances of the case, the smallest damages
would be more than a full compensation for any in.
jury which the plaintiff might have sustained.
The Jury, under the Learned Judge's direction,
who cautioned them against any feeling incompatible
with discretion and moderation, found their verdict
for the plaintiff—Damages, Pire Hundred Pounds.

The LITERARY GAZETTE of Saturday cotitair
Memoirs of Grambettista ("esti; the Court and Parliament of
Beasts, by William Stewart Itose ; Heudes Travels from
India ; Arabs of the Desert ; CUrirms Anecdotes of the Expe-
dition to Algiers; Remarks on the Tragedy of the Carib Chi
by Horace Twiss, Esq.; a Dinner Party, by the Hermit in
London ; History of Public Libraries concluded; Account of
the Annual Distrihation of Prizes by the Society of Arts, Ma-
nufactures, Rte. Discovery of Opals ; the Harlow, R.wal Aca-
demy, British Gallery, and Hogarth Exhibitions ; Shakspeare's
Portraits ; Oriental Poetry ; Memoirs of Ali Bey, alias Baths;
Mozart's Magic Flute; Miss Macauley's Regain ; Cozening ;
Anecdotes, Ste. The Literary Gazette is regularly publish, d
ever! Saturday, and sent by the Newsmen free of postage to al
parts of the Kingdom. Conmonications for the Pciiror rear be
a Idre-sNi to Mr. C'olburn, Conduit-street; or the Offices
site St. Clement'. Church, Strand:

Accounts from Irun ifl spain, doted the'illith of
this month, say, that a peasant has foundir4,pgll
near Vittoria, a very valuable diamond; 1r5e4471;
every reason to believe that it belonged to &MEM
BONAPARTE, who lost all the riches find valuable
effects which he was carryiag away, in consequence
of the total defeat of the French Army near that city.
We may observe here, that the Prince of ORA-li—ol
was present at that memorable 'battle, uhicklerl: to
the deliverance of Spain. The value of tl.e diamond
is stated to be 400,000 reals (above 100;00J, francs)
Never, without exaggeration, did .the,country
throughout England look finer, or fuller of promise,
than at this moment. The young Apples are every
where setting kindly; Plums, Cherries, Strawberries,
Grapes, and other Wall Fruit, appear in abundance.
The Corn Crops, though hardly yet in ear, look rich
and bursting. Every meadow is full of Grass, and
the Hay Season will probably become general in
about a fortnight. Whilst every cottage-garden and
common hedge breathes odours, is it possible to see
and feel all this without deep religious gratitude?

~i

I I.
,
tY
,•
1.
'
.1.
•