236 
DEATH FROM ERGOT OF RYE. 
Coroner—Do I understand you to say that ergot of rye, taken week after week for 
nine weeks, would not produce death ?—No, undoubtedly not. I should not look for 
death from it. Death would be from indirect causes. 
A Juror—Do you mean that a person taking two or three bottles it would not produce 
death ?—Yes. 
Coroner—Have you read Dr. Taylor’s work on poison?—Yes, and others as well. I 
do not think this would cause death. I entirely disagree with Dr. Stephens’s evidence 
on the post mortem examination. 
Then you come here, I suppose, to contradict his statement ?—No, Sir, I come here 
out of friendship to Mr. Garrett. • 
A Juror—I know one of the first professional men in Brighton who prescribes ergot 
for consumption and chronic diseases. 
Witness—I have known it to be given in half-ounce doses. 
Dr. Stephens—Would the subject not vomit sucha.dose?—That would depend on 
circumstances. Some might vomit it, whilst others would not. 
Coroner—Do you agree with Dr. Taylor when he says that small doses taken continu¬ 
ally would cause death ?—It would depend on what “ continually ” means,—whether it 
was six weeks or six months. 
The coroner, after referring to the opinion volunteered by Dr. Roberts, said he thought 
it overbalanced by that of Dr. Stephens, and the recognized authority on these points, 
Dr. Taylor, and that death was caused by the destruction of the organs of digestion, and 
other organs, by the use of ergot of rye. If the jury were of opinion that the deceased 
took this drug for the purpose of procuring abortion, she was guilty of self-murder. So 
were those, if they did it knowingly, who supplied the material. Of Dr. Rymer’s pre¬ 
scription they had only a copy, and there was no legal proof that the prescription pro¬ 
duced was that he gave to deceased. Ergot of rye might be given to remove certain 
irregularities, and it might have been that Dr. Rymer gave deceased the prescription for 
this purpose, and that she had since made improper use of it. However, there was no¬ 
thing in the case now which criminally implicated Dr. Rymer, although, no doubt, in 
the minds of the jury there was a strong suspicion, which Dr. Rymer certainly ought to 
remove for the sake of his own reputation. So much, then, as regards Dr. Rymer. Mr. 
Johnson only supplied the deceased with one bottle, and that was from the original pre¬ 
scription ; therefore Mr. Johnson came out of the case with clean hands. So far as re¬ 
garded Mr. Garrett, the case was more difficult to deal with. There was a conflict of 
evidence on this point. The girl Betsy Piercy said she several times fetched medicine 
from Mr. Garrett’s, and on one occasion she said she had to ask him for the pills. She 
further said that she was in the employ of the deceased nine weeks, and that a fortnight 
after she went there she went to Mr. Garrett’s and asked for “Mrs. Kingman’s me¬ 
dicine,” so that would show that deceased had taken the medicine seven weeks before 
she died. Then they had the evidence of the girl who was in deceased’s employ before 
Betsy Piercy, and she said that a month before she left she went and fetched the medi¬ 
cine from Mr. Garrett’s, so that they had it in evidence that deceased had taken this 
medicine for eleven weeks. Then, according to Mr. Garrett’s own statement, he supplied 
her with four bottles before the 20th of August, and one since, making altogether five 
bottles. Now, the question they had here to consider was—did Mr. Garrett know that 
she required this for the purpose of procuring abortion ? If they thought he was merely 
supplying the medicine under the direction of a medical man, they could not find him 
guilty of carelessness; but if, on the other hand, they thought that the practice of sup¬ 
plying such drugs was improper, they might express their opinion to that effect, although 
it would form no portion of their verdict. 
The jury returned a verdict of felo cle se, appending to it that they thought greater 
precaution should be used by chemists in dispensing such deleterious medicines. 
Referring to the above case, a “Dispensing Chemist,” in a letter to the ‘Brighton 
Herald,’ October 8, observes:—“ There are but few chemists who, in the course of their 
career, have not dispensed similar prescriptions. In my own knowledge, a prescription 
containing 1 ergot of rye ’ has been continually dispensed for a lady for three years, and 
in another case a lady took, three times a day, for several weeks, a dose of ergot half as 
strong again as that ordered in the prescription dispensed by Mr. Garrett for Miss 
Kingman. 
“ The jury forgot the fact that the chemist cannot know all the circumstances connected 
