•September 23, 1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
255 
'decomposition of the oil was another. Nevertheless, it 
is not convenient, in the extension of businesses of a 
disagreeable character, to he constantly driven from the 
•centres of industry, where their articles of manufacture 
have ultimately to he used, and this has been particu¬ 
larly the case with the oil trade. In a place like London, 
a very large part of the consumption of boiled oil must 
be local; or if the oil be exported, it is the same thing as 
far as the manufacturer is concerned, each mile he is 
driven away from his customer decreasing his profits 
without any corresponding advantage. It became, there¬ 
fore, a matter of absolute necessity that means should be 
taken to stop the intensely disagreeable smells arising 
from oil-boiling, tainting, and poisoning the air of the 
surrounding neighbourhood. This has been arrived at 
in a perfect manner, as an adjunct of the steam process. 
The best form of pan for oil-boiling is made of copper, 
•on account of its conducting heat better—an iron one 
will give equally good results, a little more time being, 
diowever, required—circular in shape, with a depth about 
•■equal to its diameter, and a rounded bottom. This pan 
ns surrounded for half its depth with an iron jacket, 
between which and its body steam is admitted as the 
;source of heat. 
(To be continued .) 
farJiratttttitrg atti fate gtomtap. 
The Serious Charge against a Chemist at 
Rotherham. 
At the Rotherham police court on Thursday, before 
<x. W. Chambers, Esq., and H. Jubb, Esq., Mr. William 
Collinson, chemist and druggist, Masbro’ Bridge, Rother- 
diam, was brought up in custody charged, “that he did 
use a certain instrument with intent to procure mis¬ 
carriage to a certain woman, named Eliza Uttley,” 
fwenty-seven years of age, daughter of Samson Uttley, 
■living near Greasborough. Rumours concerning the cir¬ 
cumstances of the case had got noised abroad, and as the 
prisoner has occupied a very respectable position in the 
town, and was well known, the court was crowded. Mr. 
Edwards was the solicitor for the prosecution, and Mr. 
Whitfield defended the prisoner. 
Mr. Edwards expressed very great regret that he had 
to appear to prosecute the prisoner, who had for a long 
■period occupied a respectable position in the town. No 
one would be more glad than himself if the prisoner 
.•should be able to clear the stain from his character which 
•the charge implied, but he was afraid, from the conclu- 
■siveness of the testimony it would be his duty to lay 
■before the bench, the prisoner would be unable to do so. 
What he then proposed to do was to place before them 
evidence as to the death of the girl, Eliza Uttley, who, 
he had been informed, had died that morning about four 
•o’clock, and to show that her death had been caused by 
the use of an instrument by the prisoner to procure 
abortion. From a declaration which had been made by 
the girl before her death, they would see that the facts 
lay in very small compass. It would seem that the girl 
was in the family-way, as she alleged, by the prisoner, 
and that knowing her condition, she went to him and 
told him. He advised her to get rid of the child, and 
■she consented that instruments should be used to procure 
abortion. She was prematurely delivered of a dead 
•child, and the poor girl herself had also died. If he 
proved to them some of those statements, it would be 
•quite sufficient to warrant them in remanding the prisoner. 
The inquest, he was told, would be held on the following 
•day. 
Samson Uttley', of Greasborough, the father of the 
-deceased, was then called. He stated that he had a 
daughter named Eliza. She died at half-past four o’clock 
■that morning. 
James Edward Long, doctor of medicine, Park Gate, 
was then examined. He said : I was called in to attend 
the deceased on Sunday' night last about nine o’clock. 
I had not previously known her. She was then in bed 
at Westfield House, which lies between Rawmarsh and 
Greasborough. I examined her and found she was suf¬ 
fering from peritonitis, that is to say', from inflammation 
of the membrane lining the cavity of the abdomen. I 
cannot explain what the cause of this inflammation was. 
It would be impossible to give any explanation now 
other than mere supposition. I found nothing in the 
womb. I examined her rather casually', because she 
was suffering very great pain, and I considered it would 
not be wise to make a minute examination, as it would 
materially add to her sufferings. I, however, intended 
to examine her the next day, and accordingly I went 
and saw her early' on the following morning, and exa¬ 
mined her more closely'. From the appearance of the 
womb I suspected she had had a miscarriage and that 
peritonitis was resulting from it. I have seen this morn¬ 
ing a foetus which has been found by Mr. Horne, and 
my opinion, after a minute examination is, that it is of 
quite five months’ growth. Whose child it is I do not 
know. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitfield: Peritonitis may 
arise from a variety of causes, and might ensue after 
an ordinary' confinement under certain circumstances. 
So far as I can judge, she died from peritonitis. I have 
examined the foetus. It is not in my charge, but is in 
the hands of the police. When I examined it I did not 
observe anything special about it. It was then scarcely' 
in a state to be minutely examined, but it ■will be exa¬ 
mined hereafter. 
Mr. Edwards: I propose now just to put in the de¬ 
claration by the deceased, taken before Mr. Jubb while 
she was in the immediate prospect of death. 
Mr. Whitfield: I have no objection to its being put 
in, if y'ou put it in properly—in the ordinary way. 
Henry Jubb, Esq., Justice of the Peace for the West 
liding of Yorkshire, was then sworn. The declaration 
alluded to by Mr. Edwards was placed in his hand, and 
he then said: This is the declaration of Eliza Uttley', 
which I took on the 12th instant, in the capacity of 
magistrate. 
Mr. Edwards: Did she make the declaration while in 
the expectation of immediate death F 
Mr. Whitfield : How can Mr. Jubb say P 
Witness : The document will speak for itself. 
Dr. Long, recalled, examined by Mr. Edwards: At 
the time the declaration was taken the woman herself 
expected death. 
Mr. Whitfield : I see that is stated in the declaration 
here. You need not go on. 
Mr. Edwards: I thought y'ou wanted the making of 
the declaration proved. 
Mr. Whitfield : I wanted it putting in properly'. 
Mr. Jubb, cross-examined by Mr. Whitfield: The de¬ 
claration was not made upon oath. Mr. Oxley, Dr. 
Long and myself were present when the declaration was 
taken. This declaration was made by the girl in answer 
to questions put by Mr. Oxley'. 
Mr. Whitfield here requested that this statement might 
be taken down in writing. The depositions were not 
being taken now, but he considered it to be of some im¬ 
portance that the statement should be put in writing. 
This procedure was not usual in ordinary' cases, but in 
extraordinary cases like the present one he thought it 
ought to be done, seeing that the statement was con¬ 
sidered to be of an important character. 
The Chairman ruled that as the depositions were not 
being taken, Mr. Whitfield was out of order in asking 
that the statement should be taken down. 
Mr. Whitfield: I have no doubt the statement is of 
the utmost importance, and, that being the case, I think 
it should be on record. 
Mr. Edwards submitted that it was quite unnecessary 
