56 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. 
November, 1881. 
prised and astonished to hear Mr, Wrixon say the girl’s 
complexion was of the usual kind. She had a freckled face, 
and a greasy, miserable look. When it was taken into con- 
sideration that Mr. Wrixon contradicted him that the deceased 
woman was in Melbourne, it was nevertheless true. He also 
spoke to prisoner about the girl, and he denied she was 
ever away for three weeks. Mr. Wrixon swore she never 
lived with his late parents. He (the prisoner) had attended 
her at the late Mr. Wrixon ’s place fourteen years ago. He had 
attended the late Mr. Wrixon in his last hours, and yet his son 
denied that he ever did so. Moreover, he attended Mr. 
Wrixon himself up to the woman’s death. Probably he had 
been tedious, and had made to-day an improper application to 
the court, but, being placed in the position that he was, he 
required the uterus to be produced to show that he was justi- 
fied in performing the operation. He was satisfied his Honour 
would consider the application a just one. He would make an 
observation, as his Honour appeared in his address to the jury 
to believe he had no power to practise. He had always main- 
tained that he had a right to practise so long as he never 
called himself a doctor, and he had the right and the skill to 
practise. Dr. MacGillivray had tried to convict him three 
times before. In 1854 he was committed for manslaughter of 
a man named Roach for doing the most miraculous act ever 
done ; and when all the others could do nothing, he kept the 
man for thirty-four days ; and such was the amount of jealousy 
that a doctor went and sat upon the man’s chest, and brought 
on inflammation, and he died. The case was brought before 
the late Judge Williams, his Honour’s father, and that judge 
said the case should never have been brought into court. 
The prisoner said that twelve years ago a young lady was 
given up to die, and he saved her life. He said she should be 
tapped, and a number of medical men, including Dr. Atkinson, 
consulted as to the performance of the operation. Dr. Rowan 
said he (prisoner) was perfectly right in going on with the 
operation, but Dr. Atkinson refused. Prisoner then performed 
a successful operation, and since the girl had written to Dr. 
Atkinson, calling him a coward for not assisting him. 
His Honour then addressed the prisoner. He said the pri- 
soner had made a request to him to have parts of the unfor- 
tunate woman examined in the presence of two medical men 
who gave evidence yesterday. To that request he had no 
power then to comply. The case had been dealt with by the 
proper tribunal— twelve jurymen ; and it was not in his power 
to review their decision, nor was it in his power to allow the 
prisoner or any one else to do any act that would have the 
aspect of reviewing the decision arrived at by the jury. If 
the request had been made to him by the prisoner’s counsel 
while the case was before the jury, he would have ordered it to 
be produced. The prisoner began his observations that morn- 
ing by saying that he was going to make a lengthy address in 
the hope of getting more justice than in the course of the trial. 
And having begun his address, he proceeded to reflect upon 
the course counsel pursued, and the way in which they con- 
ducted the case ; upon the finding of the jury, twelve of his 
fellow-countrymen ; and he had also reflected, not only upon 
the living witnesses, but on dead persons, and on the dead 
body of the unfortunate woman. His Honour did not think 
that the prisoner had done his case any good by his remarks 
that morning. 
The prisoner — “ Let me ” 
His Honour to prisoner : I cannot permit you to interrupt me 
now, sir. I think you have done your cause harm. As far as 
the verdict of the jury is concerned, I entirely agree with it, 
and cordially appreciate it. If I did not, it would make no 
difference, but, as it is, it meets with my thorough concurrence 
and cordial support, and I do not see how the jury could do other- 
wise upon the evidence. Prisoner was not guilty of murder 
but the verdict of manslaughter did him equal justice. As the 
prisoner had reflected upon counsel, and the way they had 
conducted the case, his Honour said he thought counsel exer- 
cised a very wise discretion, not only in the line of defence 
adopted, but also in not making the request for the production 
of the uterus. Amongst the prisoner’s other observations was 
that he never made the wound in the unfortunate woman. 
His counsel, who took all the points in the evidence, felt it 
hopeless to take that point, and he quite agreed with them. It 
was impossible that the wound could have been done in any 
other way than by the operation the prisoner had performed, 
or rather attempted to perform. The prisoner had been 
addressing the court for the purpose of showing that he did 
not make use of the instrument to procure abortion. The jury 
allowed that in his favour, and it seemed that the greater part 
of the prisoner’s address had been made for the purpose of 
making reflections, and for advertising himself. His Honour 
noticed that when the prisoner spoke of himself, he was moved 
to tears, but when he referred to the deed he shed no tears at 
all. By his gross ignorance the prisoner had caused the 
woman’s death. He might be allowed to tell the prisoner that 
for some time past he had been violating the provisions of two 
Acts of Parliament. If he held himself out as a doctor, and 
called himself as such when not qualified, he was violating the 
Medical Practitioners Statute ; and when performing the 
operation, such as in the present case, he violated the Act under 
which he was registered as a pharmaceutical chemist. Prisoner 
insisted in violating this Act, and, in consequence, he was liable 
to six months, in addition to a fine of £10. Therefore, in connec- 
tion with the crime he had committed, he had criminally and 
deliberately violated, not only the Medical Practitioners 
Statute, but also the Pharmacy Act, of which he had taken the 
benefit. Apart altogether from the Act and the offences he had 
been committing, his Honour would tell him, and through him 
would tell others, that he had no right whatever to endeavour 
to learn the profession by making experiments upon fellow- 
beings. Prisoner acknowledged that the woman was pregnant, 
and his Honour should have thought, apart from the medical 
evidence, that it would commend itself to common sense that 
such an operation should never have been performed. The 
evidence showed conclusively that the prisoner never pene- 
trated the uterus, but that by his gross unskilfulness or want 
of knowledge he ran the instrument into the woman’s body, 
and thereby brought on hemorrhage, causing death. In con- 
clusion, his Honour might be allowed to warn and advise the 
prisoner that when he had served the sentence he was about to 
pass he should keep within the bounds of the Act under which 
he was registered as a pharmaceutical chemist ; because, if he 
did not, he rendered himself liable to a similar prosecution 
that he had just undergone, and the sentence would be much 
heavier. The sentence of the court was that the prisoner 
should be imprisoned in the Sandhurst gaol for twelve calendar 
months, and he would order neither hard labour nor any 
labour, in consequence of his advanced years. In measuring 
the sentence, his Honour took into due consideration all the cir- 
cumstances, and all that had been said to him by counsel had 
weight with him, but the prisoner’s statements had no weight. 
The prisoner, who appeared quite unconcerned on hearing 
the sentence, was then removed. 
Subsequently his Honour told Mr. Gale, the governor of the 
gaol, that he did not wish any distinction to be made in the 
prisoner’s case than in that of any others. 
Mr. Gale said the matter would be attended to. 
fiotes rntb Abstracts. 
Mosquito Fumigating Pastilles.— Pharm, Zeitung re- 
commends the following : — 
Charcoal 
Saltpetre 
Carbolic acid 
Persian insect powder 
Tragacanth mucilage, sufficient. 
Clarifying Shellac Solutions. — Much trouble is gene- 
rally experienced in obtaining clear solutions of shellac. If a 
mixture of 1 part shellac with 7 parts of alcohol of 96 per cent, 
is heated to a suitable temperature, it quickly clears, but as 
soon becomes tu r bid again on cool ing. The on iy practical method 
of freeing the solution from what some writers call “ wax,” 
and others “fatty acid,” which is present in shellac in the 
proportion of 1 to 5 per cent., and is the cause of the turbidity, 
has hitherto been the tedious process of repeated filtration. 
M. Peltz recommends the following method Shellac, 1 part, 
is dissolved in alcohol 8 parts, and allowed to stand for a few 
hours. Powdered chalk is then added in quantity equal to 
half the weight of shellac in the solution, and the latter is 
heated to 167°. The greater portion of the solution clears 
rapidly, and the remainder may be clarified by once filtering. 
Carbonate of magnesia and sulphate of baryta were tried in 
the same way, but were not found equally efficacious .— Design 
and Work, 
Errata.— P age 42, line 5, for her read their ; line 6, for 
husband read husbands. Page 44, line 4 from the bottom, 
for pints read parts. 
1 pound. 
2 ounces. 
U „ 
8 „ 
