THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. 
November, 1881. 
54 
Mr. W. J. Pinhey, the secretary of the Pharmaceutical 
Society of New South Wales, has courteously forwarded for 
perusal the drafts of the new Pharmacy Act of New South 
Wales shortly to be introduced to Parliament.. 
The Presidents of the Medical and British Medical Societies, 
Drs. Robertson and Neild, have accepted invitations to the 
annual dinner of the Pharmaceutical Society. 
It is proposed to erase the name of James Egan Wall, who 
was convicted at the Sandhurst Assizes of manslaughter, from 
the Pharmaceutical Register. 
Mr. Prosser (Messrs. Kempthorne, Prosser and Co.), Dune- 
din, has returned to New Zealand. 
Mr. H. H. Lane (Messrs. Warner and Co.’s representative) 
has just returned from Tasmania. 
At the last meeting of the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society of Victoria the President of the Queensland Pharma- 
ceutical Society was elected an honorary member. 
Xcctal itnb iftagistcnal. 
CHARGE OF MURDER. 
James Egan Wall Guilty of Manslaughter. 
James Egan Wall surrendered to his bail at the Court of 
Assize on 28th October, and was placed in the dock, charged 
with murder, and on a second count of manslaughter. He 
pleaded “not guilty.” Messrs. Casey, Hornbuckle and Quick, 
instructed by Mr. Rymer, defended the prisoner, and Mr. 
Chomley prosecuted for the Crown. 
All witnesses were ordered out of court, on the application 
of Mr. Casey, and the prisoner was allowed to take a seat in 
the dock. 
The Crown prosecutor said the prisoner was charged with 
having feloniously killed and murdered Margaret Smith, a 
woman twenty-eight years of age, the nature of the charge 
being that at the time of her death the prisoner was engaged 
in the commission of an illegal act. According to law, if a 
person be engaged in the commission of felony, though he may 
not have the intention to kill, the law regards it as murder. 
In the present case the prisoner used an instrument to procure 
abortion of the deceased woman, she being enciente at the 
time. If the jury thought that the purpose of the prisoner 
was not to procure abortion, or to perform an operation 
without competent skill to justify such an operation, then he 
was guilty of manslaughter. The question for the jury was 
whether the act was a felonious one, or whether the prisoner 
was guilty of performing an unwarrantable operation. 
Prisoner had been a resident of Sandhurst for a long time, and 
the deceased woman was a domestic servant or housekeeper 
in the employ of Mr. Henry Wrixon, an attorney living at 
Sandhurst. She had been in his service for some five years, 
and so far as Mr. YVTixon’s evidence went, it would show that 
the woman was in sound, vigorous health up to the day of her 
death. On the 1st August she was at her master’s house in 
Sandhurst, and the groom, Thomas Storey, in Mr. VVrixon’s 
employ, last saw her alive about three o’clock in the afternoon, 
and she was then in good health and spirits, and in the garden 
watering the flowers. She went from the garden into the 
house. A little girl named Margaret Beale, came to the place 
about five o’clock, and went up to the back door of Mr. 
Wrixon’s house. She wanted to see the deceased woman, and 
called out “ Maggy,” meaning the deceased woman. A person 
came to the door, whom the little girl recognised as the 
prisoner, and asked what was “ all this Maggying about,” and 
said that “ Margaret was out.” The little girl remained about 
the garden, and saw Wall about six o’clock leave the house. 
About half-past six, Mr. Wrixon came home, and found the 
parlour door locked. He went to the groom, and they entered 
the parlour by the French window, and there found the woman 
stretched upon the sofa dead, with a sheet thrown over her. 
She was in good health at half-past three, and at six o’clock 
she was dead. The deceased, when found, was half undressed, 
and blood was discovered upon the floor and other things. 
Drs. MacGillivray and Atkinson made a post-mortem examina- 
tion of the body, and they would tell the jury that death was 
caused by a wound made by some instrument having been 
forced against the wall of the vagina behind the abdomen, 
and, after piercing a number of blood vessels, entered the 
stomach, inflicting a lacerated wound about a quarter of an 
inch in diameter. The hemorrhage from the wound flowed 
into the abdomen, and the doctors concurred in saying that 
this wound caused death. 
Mr. Chomley was going on to state the opinion of the doctors 
formed upon the appearances, when Mr. Casey took exception 
to the statement and objected, saying he was going to object 
when the doctors were being examined, as it was a question 
for the jury to decide as to the purpose for which the prisoner 
performed the operation. 
Mr. Chomley continued his address, and said the Crown 
must put this point before the jury, but he would not give Mr. 
Casey an opportunity of taking exception to his opening 
address until they had the evidence. Those appearances would 
be described, and he would offer the evidence, which he thought 
they would accept. There was nobody about the house except 
Storey, the groom, until the arrival of the little girl Beale, and 
the prisoner told the latter that the deceased was out. Prisoner 
was seen leaving the house, and deceased was found dead 
shortly afterwards, and with marks of violence upon her body. 
Those circumstances the prisoner seemed bound to explain, 
and Wall attended as a witness at the inquest. The coroner, 
in most explicit terms, told the prisoner that he was not bound 
to give evidence unless he chose to do so. That being so, the 
statement of the prisoner was evidence to go to the jury, and he 
(Mr. Chomley) intended to put it to them. The prisoner swore 
then that he had known the deceased for about eight or nine 
years, and that some seven years ago he treated her while in 
the employ of Mr. Wrixon’s mother in Melbourne for disease 
of the uterus. As regards that statement, Mr. Wrixon could 
prove that Mrs. Wrixon never saw the deceased woman, as Mrs. 
Wrixon had been dead some time before Margaret Smith was 
engaged by the family. The prisoner had found there was 
evidence against him, and he floundered in this wild way to 
make an explanation. Mr. Wrixon would swear that the 
deceased never went to Melbourne, as sworn by the prisoner at 
the inquest. The prisoner deposed that he treated her for 
blood-poisoning, but the evidence would show there was no 
trace of such. Prisoner also swore that he had been sent for 
the night before the woman’s death, as the deceased had 
become suddenly enlarged in the abdomen, and that certain 
discharges had occurred. The medical men would tell the 
jury that had there been any such discharge of sacs the 
post-mortem appearances would have shown corresponding 
disease of the organs. It was for the jury to say whether the 
evidence of Wall was not wholly false. Prisoner swore that he 
made a diligent examination, and he gave his opinion that 
the deceased was pregnant ; that the deceased denied it, and 
he told her to see another doctor ; that the abdomen was en- 
larged, and that he told her that he could relieve her if she would 
consent to take chloroform ; that he went into the house, and 
caused her to partially undress, and put her under chloroform; 
that he used the catheter, which he found passed the cervix 
uteri, and on withdrawing the instrument found bloody matter 
upon it ; after he had finished, the deceased woman, accord- 
ing to Wall, said she hoped it would not have to be done 
again. He told her to put on her clothes, and when about 
telling her she was pregnant, she asked for brandy, which he 
gave her. A short time after he heard a gurgling sound in her 
throat, and Wall put some brandy to her mouth, but she died 
shortly afterwards. After she was dead he said he put the 
clothes stained with blood out of sight, so that Mr. Wrixon 
could not see them, as he did not like to see blood. He locked 
the door, and put the key in the verandah so as to prevent the 
little girl going in. Those were the statements of the prisoner ; 
and he was said to have used the instrument most unskilfully. 
Wall knew the woman was pregnant, as he told her so. There 
was no trace of those imaginary hydatid sacs referred to by 
prisoner. What was his object in performing the operation ? 
The evidence of the doctors would form an opinion as to 
whether he used the instrument to cause a miscarriage. If the 
jury believed that the prisoner, not having competent know- 
ledge, showed want of skill in handling the instrument, and 
caused the death of the woman, then it was manslaughter. 
It was certain that the prisoner had caused the death of the 
woman, as, according to his own statement, she died before his 
eyes. 
Thomas Storey, groom in the employ of Mr. Wrixon, and 
the little girl Beale repeated the evidence they gave at the 
coronial inquiry. < . 
Henry Wrixon, solicitor, deposed to the deceased being in 
his employ for about five years, and also to finding her dead on 
the evening of the 1st of August. 
Dr. MacGillivray gave similar evidence to that at the 
inquest. He deposed that, if there were hydatids, they would 
have found the cysts shrivelled up, or the marks, but there 
were no such signs. The wound indicated that some person 
