CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST A HERBALIST. 
639 
CHARGE OF MANSLAUGHTER AGAINST A HERBALIST. 
At the Central Criminal Court , May 11th (before Mr. Justice Williams), John Stevens 
was indicted for the manslaughter of William Probee. Mr. Poland conducted the prose¬ 
cution, and prefaced the examination of witnesses with a statement, to the effect that the 
prisoner, formerly a grocer, was now a medical botanist, in High Street, Whitechapel, and 
held himself out as an agent of Dr.Coffin, a herbalist. He was charged with causing the 
death of William Probee, a lad of fifteen, by administering to him improper and dangerous 
medicines under circumstances which would be related in evidence. The law on the subject, 
he observed, had been laid down by the late Justice Buffer, who on one occasion said he 
took it to be quite clear that if a person not of medical education undertook to administer 
medicine which might have a dangerous effect and thereby caused death, such a person 
was guilty of manslaughter. The prisoner was defended by Mi'. Serjeant Ballantine and 
Mr. Sleigh. It was proved in evidence that on Sunday, March 20th, the deceased, Wil¬ 
liam Probee, was taken iff, and that in the evening his father went to consult the prisoner, 
and brought back a bottle of medicine, a box of pills, and a powder. The patient took 
the whole of the mixture, the powder, and eight of the pills the same evening. On 
Tuesday he was much worse, and a powder was obtained from the prisoner, which was 
given to the boy. The next day he was worse, and Dr. Monk was then called in, and 
prescribed some medicine; but it was not given to the boy, as the father “had much faith 
in the prisoner.” Mr. Cumming, a surgeon, was also called in and sent some medicine, 
but this was not given, and the prisoner continued to see the boy until his death, which 
took place six days after taking the medicine first prescribed by the prisoner. Mr. Ser¬ 
jeant Ballantine, in addressing the jury on behalf of the prisoner, contended that the 
whole question was one of opinion. Medical practice of late years had undergone a com¬ 
plete revolution, and homoeopathy had taken the place of blood-letting. The prisoner 
contended that he had made no mistake, and that the remedies he had used were proper; 
if he was in error in selling capsicum, then every patent medicine vendor in the king¬ 
dom was liable to be indicted. 
Mr. Justice Williams, in charging the jury, said, that if the prisoner had been 
guilty of an unlawful act in the administration of the medicine, he was undoubtedly re¬ 
sponsible for his conduct, and was guilty of manslaughter. The first question the jury 
would have to decide was this, whether they were satisfied that the death of the de¬ 
ceased was attributable to that unlawful conduct; and that the death of the deceased 
was the result of the medicine administered to him by the prisoner after the latter had 
undertaken the treatment of the case. The law of the land upon the subject was this, 
that there was no distinction whatever to be drawn between the case of a man who had 
qualified in the ordinary way for the practice of medicine, and a person who had not done 
so. Whether a medical attendant were authorized or not to act as such, made no differ¬ 
ence ; he was not responsible criminally for any mistake of judgment w r hich might be 
imputable to him, unless that mistake of judgment could fairly be attributable to gross 
ignorance or want of skill on his part. The most eminent practitioner that ever lived 
had made and might make a mistake in the treatment of a particular patient, and he 
was no more responsible for that mistake than any other practitioner would be of lesser 
skill. In other words, if it were a mere mistake of judgment, he would not be respon¬ 
sible ; but if the mistake he had made w ould not have been made but for his want of skiff, 
then he was answerable for the consequences, because no man had a right to undertake 
the treatment of the disease of another, unless he was possessed of competent skill and 
judgment. Therefore, the inquiry was divisible into two branches,—first, was it made 
out to the satisfaction of the jury that the death of the boy, William Probee, was caused 
by improper medicines administered to him by the prisoner after he had undertaken the 
treatment of the case ? If they were satisfied that the medicine was a proper medi¬ 
cine, and that that medicine had not superinduced the death, of course there would be an 
end of the inquiry; but if they should be of opinion that the death was attributable to 
the administration of the medicine, then would come the inquiry, was the administration 
of that medicine the result of ignorance and want of skill? The case was undoubtedly 
one of first-rate importance, because it was most salutary for the interests of the public 
that an unqualified person, acting ignorantly and without skill, should be punished for 
manslaughter if death resulted from his acts. 
The jury then returned a verdict of Not Guilty , and the prisoner was discharged. 
