25G 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [September 23, 197E 
that any statement should he taken in writing then. 
Suppose he put it to them this way : That in consequence 
of the absence of material witnesses he was unable to go 
on with the case. They would then have it in their 
power to remand the prisoner. 
Mr. Whitfield: Well, I do not see any objection to your 
application. 
Mr. Jubb, cross-examined by Mr. Whitfield, con¬ 
tinued : Mr. Oxley asked the girl the questions, and I 
wrote down the answers. 
Mr. Whitfield: I, of course, can hare no possible ob¬ 
jection to the present application for a remand in this 
case, but it must be understood that there are -very grave 
objections to the admissibility of this document, and it 
will be my duty when the proper time comes to submit 
that this document is not admissible in evidence. How¬ 
ever, it is not necessary for me to do so now. Only let 
the remand be for as short a period as possible. 
Mr. Edwards: Monday will do. 
Mr. Whitfield: Will you be disposed to admit the 
prisoner to bail ? 
The Chairman: No, we cannot do so at present. 
Mr. Whitfield: After the inquest I will renew my 
application. 
The Chairman : Of course you can do so. 
Mr. Jubb, recalled by Mr. Whitfield: The accused 
was not present at the time when the declaration was made. 
The Chairman (to prisoner): You stand remanded 
until Monday. 
The majority of the spectators then left the court. 
The declaration referred to in the above discussion, 
though put in as evidence, was not read publicly. 
On Friday, September 15th, at noon, an inquest 
touching the death of Eliza Utley, aged 26, the daughter 
of Mr. Samson Utley, of Westfield House, Eedhill, 
Greasbro’, was opened at the house of the father of the 
deceased by J. Webster, Esq., district coroner. The 
death of the deceased was alleged to have been caused 
by the use, by William Collinson, chemist and druggist, 
Masbro’, of an instrument to procure abortion. 
Mr. Edwards watched the proceedings for the prose¬ 
cution, and Mr. Whitfield attended to watch the case 
on behalf of the prisoner, who was not present at the 
investigation. 
On Thursday last a post-mortem examination of the 
body was made by Mr. Knight, surgeon, Rotherham; 
Dr. J. C. Hall, Sheffield; Dr. J. E. Long, of Parkgate; 
and Dr. Moore, Mr. Knight’s assistant. 
Mr. Henry John Knight, surgeon, was the first witness 
called, and gave evidence to the effect that ho, in con¬ 
junction with the above-named medical gentlemen, had 
made a post-mortem examination of the body of the de¬ 
ceased. He described minutely the appearance pre¬ 
sented by the abdomen and other parts. The body was 
well nourished, but presented indications that the de¬ 
ceased was far advanced in pregnancy. Further inves¬ 
tigations showed that there was acute inflammation of 
the peritoneum, and that the adjacent organs were in an 
abnormal state, and contained a quantity of watery 
pus. Mr. Knight then described in detail his examina¬ 
tion of those parts of the body the condition of which 
bore more immediately on the subject of the inquiry. 
He attributed death to peritonitis, or inflammation of 
the covering of the abdomen, but declined to swear posi¬ 
tively to the immediate cause. 
Examined by Mr. Edwards : I am of opinion that 
there had been an operation. I was shown the body of 
a male child on Thursday. I take it to bo from four 
and a half to five months old. 
In reply to questions by Mr. Whitfield, the witness 
stated that under certain circumstances indications of 
violence might not be discovered. 
By Mr. Edwards: The instrument produced might be 
used for other purposes. 
Mr. J. E. Long, doctor of medicine, Parkgate (exa¬ 
mined by Mr. Edwards) : I was called in to see the- 
deceased on Sunday night last, at nine o’clock. I 
found her suffering very severely from peritonitis. The 
next time I attended her was on the following (Monday) 
morning, and I attended her daily. She died on Thurs¬ 
day morning. I should be inclined to believe that she 
died from peritonitis, as stated by Sir. Knight. On the. 
first occasion of my visit the deceased’s mother was 
in the room, and she afterwards left me there along 
with the patient. I was with her about three minutes, 
when Mr. Collinson came up. That was at nine o’clock 
at night. He made no remarks to the deceased, but I 
spoke to him first. I said, “Oh, what are you here?” 
He said “ Yes,” and I got up from my seat. Mr. Col¬ 
linson has previously several times practised as a medical 
man. I asked, “Have you seen this patient ?” and ho 
said “ Yes.” I asked him if he had sent her any medi¬ 
cine, and he said yes, some aperient mixture. He said 
they (the deceased’s parents) sent for him on the pre¬ 
vious night, and he saw her that morning. He said he 
had given her nothing else. I tasted the medicine. He 
then went away, saying that as I was going to attend, 
the case ho would bid me good night. In consequence 
of something the deceased said to me, I saw Collinson 
again. I asked him if he had ever seen her before the- 
time he had stated, and he said yes, about three weeks 
before. I asked him if she had had any medicine, and 
he said yes, he thought two bottles. I then asked what 
was the nature of the medicine he had given, and he 
said each bottle contained two or three drachms of' 
muriated tincture of iron, which is merely a tonic. I 
then said deceased had had a miscarriage, and he said, 
“I don ; t believe that would do it, any way.” I then, 
left him, and went to Sheffield. I had no conversation, 
about the paternity of the child. I saw Dr. Hall in. 
Sheffield, and made arrangements with him to attend 
the case. I have seen Collinson two or three times- 
since Dr. Hall has seen the deceased, and had conversa¬ 
tion as to the probable cause of death. I told him Dr- 
Hall concurred with me in my opinion as to the cause 
of her death. I was present when she made her decla¬ 
ration before the magistrate, and I went to Mr. Collin¬ 
son after that. I told him nothing about her stating; 
that ho was the father of the child. I told him she- 
made a most serious accusation against him. 
In answer to the Coroner, the witness said that the 
reason he went to Collinson about this case was that the 
woman told him of it. After the prisoner*had left wit¬ 
ness on the first night he went to see her, and made a', 
more particular examination. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitfield: It was on the 12th 
instant that I told Collinson that the deceased had made 
the charge against him mentioned in the indictment. 
The instrument produced might have been used for 
other purposes. 
Mrs. Annie Utley: I am the wife of Samson Utley, 
miner. The deceased was my daughter. We called her 
Eliza. She was twenty-six years of age, and a domestic 
servant. She died on Thursday morning, the 14th 
instant. I did not know she had had a child. She came- 
home a fortnight to-day (Friday). I was not aware of 
her state. Collinson has only been to our house twice. 
I did not know till after she died that she had anything 
to do with him. I never saw Collinson in my life till he 
came to my house. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Whitfield: Collinson first saw 
my daughter last Sunday. I sent for him on the pre¬ 
vious Saturday night. My daughter was brought home 
in a cab from Mr. Sharp’s house at Rotherham, where 
she had been attending Mrs. Sharp during her confine¬ 
ment. 
Elizabeth Lockwood said: I live at Greasbro’. My 
father is a collier. I knew Eliza Utley. I saw her at 
her mother’s when she was ill. She was in bed. I fol¬ 
lowed her directions in certain particulars. 
By Mr. Edwards : I did not notice anything at all in. 
