Star.
London, England, 1819-10-07 00:00:00

Zdei,

PRI CE• SEVEN-PENCE.

OLDHAM INQUEST.

The following is a more particular account, than
we gave yesterday, of part of the examination of Dr.
SIMMONS,I of the Manchester Infirmary, who was
called to prove that JOHN LEES had not died of the
wounds he received on the 16th of August :
Q. (from the CORONER.)—CouId the inflammation
you have described have existed from the 16th If
August to the time of his death ?—A. Certainly not.
Q. If it had been produced by external violence,
on the 16th, when would inflammation have taken
place?—A. In two or three days. .
Q. How long had inflammation existed previously
to his death ?—A. Not many days.
Q. Are you of opinion the bruises mentioned by
Mr. Basnett and Mr. Cox, as appearing on his body,
occasioned his death ?—A. I am mcst decidedly of
opinion his death was not occasioned by any injury
he received on the 16th Of August.
Q. If the inflammation occasioned his death, how
long could it have subsisted ?—A. I have just said,
not many days. Inflammation of the bowels will
sometime destroy life in 24 hours.
Q. If the inflammation on the omentum had been
occasioned by wounds received on the 16th August,
how long could he have lived ?—.A. Not a week.
Q. You say he had recovered the effect of the in-
juries received on the 16th?—A. Whatever injury
he received on the ground, all source of danger had
terminated before his death ; he could not have died
from it ; and the disease of which he died was of re-
cent origin. The cause of his death was subsequent
to the 16th August. •
Q. It is stated in other evidence, that certain spots
appeared on his foot, on a day before he died ?—A.
I will explain the difference between a recent extra-
vasation of blood and one of long continuance. The
past at first looks black ; as absorption takes place,
the wound assumes a variegated appearance—black,
blue, lilac, and yellow. Any spot of that kind may
be explained on this principle. These spots may have
arisen from bruises in walking about ; they could not
be owing to paralysis. The loss of one side was evi-
dently owing to conjestion of blood on the brain and
vessels of the head ; but this had nothing, and could
have nothing to do with any injury he had received,
had it been ten times greater than it was, on the
16th of August.
It is also in evidence, that a few days before
his death, he complained of pain in his shoulder; can
you account for that pain ?—A. Paralysis on the left
side blinds one eye ; and when they lifted the de-
pressed part, if he lay continually in one posture, he
rraight feel pain.
Q. (from the Foreman.)—Yon say he did not die
'from what he received at Manchester, and 'would not
`have died had he received ten times as mudb. I want
to know if you can tell what he did receive ?—A. I
reason upon the evidence of Mr. Basnett and Vr. Cox.
Q. (from the same.)—lt has been proved in evi-
-1 dence he was bruised by truncheons; might not these
' bruises leave something to occasion his death ?—A.
He had recovered from the effect of those bruises.
Q. (from another Juryman.)—l wish to ask the
learned Doctor, if wounds and bruises may not be
(riven to-a man which will occasion his death three
0
weeks after?—A. The injuries and bruises this man
had received were not likely to occasion his death at
so distant a period.
Q. (from the same.)—Do you mean to say, exter-
nal injury done to the side of a man will not, and
cannot, lead to his death in about three weeks ? —A.
Unless, in consequence of his bruises, the larger ca-
vities were affected, so as to injure the viscera, I an-
swer in the negative.
Q. (the same.)—You are certain the larger cavi-
ties had not been injured ?—A. I believe they had not.
Q. From what you saw in the Courier newspaper?
A. No; from the evidence of Mr. Basnett and Mr.
Cox exclusively,
Cross-examined by Mr. HARMER.—His opinion
was formed solely from the evidence he had heard
here. He had seen the accounts in the Courier, but
had had no c-mmunications on the subject, either offi-
cially or with any medical men. He came here in con-
sequence of having said to Mr. Cook, an attorney,
who took notes for the Magistrates on Saturday)
and two other Gentlemen, it was physically impos-
sible Lees could have died of his wounds and bruises.
Had he examined the body, he might have seen the
same appearances in a different point of view. He
knew Mr. Cox when he was a pupil at the Manches-
ter Infirmary, where he conducted himself extremely
well ; but he had not seen him for twenty years till
to-day.
.Mr. Cox was esteemed much for professional
Character and long experience.
Q. (Mr. HAE?dER.) Would yon, not having seen
the body when Mr. Cox lad, and given his opinion
as to the cause of Lees death, venture to contradict
him ?—A. I certainly would; I have seen more of
this suit of practice than Mr. Cox.
Q. That is, you conceive that your skill, even with-
out the advantage of actual knowledge, is better than
the judgment and experienCe of Mr. Cox, who had
ocular demonstration to assist his decision ?—A. I
certainly think my own opinion the more correct.
Mr. Ha um En.—The Jury, Sir, will appreciate the
value of that self-opinion. •
Q. (from the CunoNEn.)—Mr. Harmer says de-
ceased never recovered, so as to be able to work ?—•
A. lit Lad recovered from all danger, but was not
restored to vigorous health. He must have so far
rccovert4 as to be in a state of safety.
. sIXTII pAY—pCTOBETA. S.
James Wheriell deposed as follows:—I' saw John
Lees, whom I have known fur many years, at Saint
Peter's-field on the IGth of August. It was on the
hustings I saw him, a little after twelve o'clock. I.
did not sce.him again until the Cavalry were among
the people. I have not been at the ground since the
Ifith. I was nearer the hustings than the houses of