“ Hydrophobia.’’ 167 
(It is not necessary to give these details.) “The same fright- 
ened look. Movements now seemed not so much the result 
of involuntary spasms as of premeditated design. . . .” 
(Attempts to injure the attendants are here described.) 
“Two,porters cannot now hold him. . . . Countenance 
fearful; struggling as if for life; after this, sank down much 
exhausted; a momentary glance at a rotating ventilator set 
up most violent spasms. Becoming much weaker. Once or 
twice, the air escaping from lungs burst open the glottis, with 
a short, sharp ring, soon bécoming like bark of dog, and his 
movements, &c., appeared crouching, and generally simulating 
those of a dog. 3.30 p.m.—Patient died. 
“During his illness, he often remarked that the dog was 
not mad—‘No more mad than I am. During the whole 
of the two days, he did not appear to swallow his saliva, 
but spat a great deal of frothy matter.” 
The patient was probably right. There was no evidence 
that the dog was rabid. Soon after the accident, he sum- 
moned the owner before a magistrate in London, on the 
ground that he allowed a ferocious dog to be at large. On 
hearing the man’s account of the accident, and evidence of 
the quiet character of the dog, the magistrate decided that, 
merely because the man had accidentally trodden on the 
dog, and had been bitten, it was no proof that it was a 
dangerous animal, and refused to make an order for its 
destruction. ; 
Any remarks I might make on examples of this and the 
former are rendered unnecessary by the subjoined paragraph 
from the Lancet : 3 
“The fallacies attending a diagnosis of hydrophobia are 
strikingly illustrated by a case which occurred, a few days 
ago, at Leamington. An inquest was held on the body of a 
woman, aged forty-six, who was popularly supposed to have 
died in consequence of hydrophobia, caused by the bite of a 
cat. A month after receiving the bite, a convulsive attack 
ushered in a period of restlessness and nervousness, during 
