78 THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. February, 1882 . 
post-mortem examination in conjunction with Dr. M £ Gillivray. 
Prisoner was then present. On the body found a lacerated 
wound from the vagina to the peritenium, which, by internal 
and external hemorrhage, was the cause of death. This was 
probably, as proposed by the prisoner himself, caused by the 
use of a catheter or stiletto, and was, no doubt, an attempted 
surgical operation. To Mr. Hornbuckle : The gum catheter 
can be used with safety by an inexperienced person. Such 
operations as drawing a tooth, &c., are called minor surgery, 
and can be performed by a chemist. Dr. P. H. M‘Gillivray 
deposed that on the 2nd of August, in conjunction with the 
last witness, he made a post-mortem examination on the body 
of Margaret Smith, and found that death had been caused by a 
lacerated wound, extending from the vagina to the peritenium. 
It was, no doubt, the result of an attempted surgical operation. 
Do not remember that anything was said with reference to the 
matter by the prisoner. To Mr. Hornbuckle : At the post- 
mortem Wall had an opportunity of seeing everything that 
was done, so that at the inquest he might have cross-examined. 
During the inquiry the prisoner asked that the uterus might 
be produced, but this was refused. Mr. Strickland, recalled, 
in answer to Mr. Kirby, explained that Wall made application 
to witness, under the 16th section of the medical statute, that 
he should be allowed to be present at the post-mortem exami- 
nation. Prisoner did not say anything on that occasion, as 
witness was also present, and prevented him. At the inquest 
prisoner had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, 
which he took advantage of. (Here Mr. Hornbuckle again 
objected to the depositions being introduced, and was upheld 
by the Bench.) 
John Holdsworth, pharmaceutical chemist, deposed that he 
had been in business over thirty years. It was not the right 
and privilege of a chemist to practice surgery. He would not 
even take a case of diphtheria in hand. 
Henry Trumble, pharmaceutical chemist, gave evidence to 
having been in business for over twenty years. All such 
operations as drawing a tooth, placing a piece of sticking- 
plaster over a cut, and drawing the sides together are all 
minor surgical operations, and witness would consider him- 
self justified in performing such operations. 
Richard John Webb, sergeant of police at Sandhurst, deposed 
to being at Mr. Wrixon’s on 2nd of August. Wall knocked 
at the door, and asked to see Mr. Wrixon. That gentleman 
was in the room. Wall then came in and said, “Mr. 
Wrixon, I am ashamed to meet you.” Mr. Wrixon replied 
that it was a terrible affair. Prisoner then asked Mr. 
Wrixon whether he remembered his showing him a 
hydatid cyst which he removed from the woman Smith some 
three years previously. Mr. Wrixon said he did not. The 
witness also gave evidence as to a conversation which he had 
with prisoner with reference to the woman’s death. 
James Storey, who was a groom employed on the premises at 
same time, deposed that he last saw the woman Smith alive at 
half-past three on the 1st of August last. She was found dead 
at six o’clock, about a quarter of an hour after Wall left the 
premises. 
Margaret Beale, a little girl of thirteen years of age, gave 
evidence that she was in the house on the 2nd August. The 
prisoner Wall was there. Witness called out “ Maggie,” when 
the prisoner came out of the room and asked “ What all this 
Maggieing meant.” 
This closed the case for the prosecution. 
Mr. Kirby said that once the offence was disclosed on the 
summons it could be amended by the Bench on theevidence given. 
An adjournment was here made for lunch. 
On resuming at two o’clock, Mr. Kirby resumed his remarks. 
He argued that section 69 of the Justices Statute said that 
there was no power to alter where no offence was disclosed on 
the summons. There had been no occasion to put in the sum- 
mons what he had about the catheter ; all that need have been 
said was that the accused had practised surgery. He got those 
words after reading the depositions, which, however, it had 
been since stated could not be admitted as evidence. It was 
plain that surgery had been practised, and they had strong 
circumstantial evidence that Wall was the man who did it. 
The act of surgery was performed outside the rights and privi- 
leges of chemists. Wall was present at the post-mortem 
examination, and it had been proved that death was caused by 
an attempt at surgical operation. He thought there was 
sufficient evidence to find Wall guilty upon. ' He withdrew 
his application for an amendment to the summons. 
Mr. Hornbuckle said it would be idle for him to ask the 
magistrates to forget what they had seen in the newspapers of 
the evidence given at the inquest, for he was sure that their 
decision would be based merely on what they had heard that 
day. They were told all that was wanted was to have Wall’s 
name struck off the roll, and this much could be obtained by 
the infliction of a nominal penalty. But Mr. Kirby asked for 
more, and he (Mr. Hornbuckle) felt convinced that the whole 
affair was malicious and vindictive. Sergeant Webb gave 
evidence as to the death, which was quite in conformity with 
death from exhaustion, or what Wall stated in his depositions,, 
from chloroform. The doctors did not say that it was a 
catheter that was used. 
The Bench said it did not matter about the catheter, pro- 
vided it had been clearly shewn that some person attempted 
to perform an operation. 
Mr. Hornbuckle said that there was no evidence of Wall 
having performed a surgical operation. The only one that 
could prove he had was dead. The Bench had, no doubt, the 
whole history of the case in their minds, but they must not 
think of what they had read. 
Mr. Webster : “ It so happened that I did not read the 
depositions at the time.” 
Mr. Hornbuckle said that it was difficult to decide a matter 
like this, apart from the previous case. But there had been no 
evidence to support the charge. There was no direct proof 
that Wall performed the operation, and a man should not be 
sent to gaol on a surmise. It had not been proved that Wall 
was not a surgeon. 
The Bench said that he might be a surgeon, but he was not 
on the medical roll. It was for Mr. Hornbuckle to prove that 
he was a surgeon. 
Mr. Hornbuckle said there was nothing to prevent a man 
being both a chemist and a surgeon. The offence had not 
been proved, and even performing an operation was not 
practising as a surgeon. Practising did not mean a single 
isolated case. There was no evidence that Wall operated for 
the purpose of gain. He might even have used the instru- 
ment as a friend, just as a farmer might, with a slight know- 
ledge of setting a limb, attend to the broken arm of a friend. 
The Bench said that the evidence they had heard was the 
only evidence that concerned their decision. It had trans- 
pired that Wall was the man who performed the operation. 
There was plenty of evidence to prove that an operation had 
been attempted. The circumstantial evidence adduced was of 
a very strong character. It was left to them to decide, and 
they could not help fixing Wall as the person who did it. 
They would not inflict a very heavy penalty. They would fine 
Wall Is., and three months’ imprisonment, which would com- 
mence at the expiration of the term he is now serving. 
A HOMCEOPATHIC CHEMIST CHARGED WITH 
LARCENY. 
The St. Kilda Bench — consisting of the Mayor (Mr. Gavan 
Shaw), and Messrs. Pilley, Simpson, and Balderson, J.P.’s— 
were engaged on the 6th February in investigating a charge 
of theft preferred against Mr. Thomas Osmond, homoeo- 
pathic chemist, High-street, St. Kilda. The facts, as de- 
tailed by the prosecutrix, Mrs. Clara Gardner, residing 
at Leicester-street, St. Kilda, were as follow : — On 
Monday afternoon she was returning from Melbourne 
to St. Kilda in an omnibus, in which the prisoner 
was also a passenger. She placed a small travelling 
basket on the seat beside her, the prisoner facing her on the 
opposite side. Her basket contained some small parcels and 
her purse, in which was a note for £5 and some silver. Mr. J. 
Mason, a gentleman in the commission of the peace, was also 
a passenger. In the course of the journey, Mr. Mason re- 
marked the prosecutrix’s purse lying on the seat beside her, 
and before arriving at his destination the prisoner shifted his 
position to the same side of the omnibus where she was sitting. 
The prisoner got out at High-street, and then Mr. Mason called 
the attention of the prosecutrix to the fact that the former 
had taken up her purse and departed with it in his possession. 
He had, as he stated in evidence, also watched the movements 
of the prisoner while in the omnibus, and it appeared to him 
that in order to possess himself of the purse without detection 
the prisoner had tried to cover it with the skirt of his coat. 
By Mr. Mason’s advice the prosecutrix obtained the services of 
a police constable, and they all three went to the prisoner’s 
shop in High-street, and charged him with stealing the purse. 
He admitted that he had it, but said that it had been his in- 
tention to find the owner and restore it. He was then taken 
into custody. Mr. Weller appeared for the defence, and in a 
