JAMES V. 13th 14th and 15th.

Clutha Leader, Volume I, Issue 16, 22 October 1874, Page 4

JAMES V. 13th 14th and 15th.

Seeing that the true interpretation of the above passage has so recently occupied the attention ofthe Clutha Presbytery, the following remarks by the 1 Scotsman ' upon the subject will be interesting to that body as well as to the " Tokomairiro Elder/ whose doubts upon the subject gave rise to the discussion in the ecclesiastical court. The ' Scotsman ' writes ; — " The ruling of Baron Pigptt in the case cf Thomas Hines, one of the " Peculiar People," who was charged with having contributed to the death of his child by neglecting to provide it with proper medical attendance, may be sound enough, but it certainly gives rise to some uneasy, considerations, and suggests some curious questions. Tbe difficulty about it arises both in the manner and the matter of the decision — both, the reasons and the conclusion seem open to misunderstanding, if they may not even be productive of mischief. To understand how important, at least in its results, the decision may be, it is necessary to go over the facts which led to Thomas Hines being placed at the baron a criminal charge. - Hines is one ofthe " Peculiar People," whose peculiar tenet is based upon a couple of verses in the General Epistle of James — " Is any sick among you ? Let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord ; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up, and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him." The Peculiar People's interpretation pf this is that only prayer and anointing with oil should be resorted to in case of sickness, and that medical attendance and such like mundane aids should be rejected. Hines had a son two years old who was seized with illness. George Hurry, an en - gine-driver, and Elder among the Peculiar People, was called in. He laid his hands on the child " in the name of the Lord," prayed over it. and anointed it with oil — salad oil, Hurry said he used. That remedial process, however, was not effective— the child became worse and died. No medical man was called in, because prayer and anointing with oil were held to be all that was necessary. It is curious, however, to note that Thomas Hines and his friends seem to think that prayer and anointing can only do what the advice, of a physician might do. They do not leave everything to prayer." The child had "port wine, brandy, arrowroot, milk, and tea." Weak mutton broth was also administered; and Elder Hurry states that he recommended Hines " to get some of the purest milk from a dairyman * and give it to the child." Most people will think that in all this there was not only ..shown some distrust of the curative power of prayer, but that Elder Hurry was acting without knowledge very much as if he were a physician with knowledge-— that is to say, he was suggesting remedies in addition to prayer, while he knew nothing whatever of the disease under which the child was suffering. When the child died there was an inquest, at which tbe Coroner's jury found a verdict of culpable neglect against Hines, and he was sent for trial at the Central Criminal Court. It should be said that the charge of neglect depended entirely; on the fact that no medical man had been called in to see the child-* I—in1 — in all other respects it had been carefully attended to.

! The following is the report of the case referred to : — Thomas Hines, a working man residing at Woolwich, and a member of the sect called the •' Peculiar People," was tried at the Central Criminal Court, London, on Wednesday^ before Mr Baron Pigott, for neglecting to provide proper medical attendance for his child, Joseph Hines, aged two years, and thereby endangering his . life- The prisoner had been committed for trial for the manslaughter of the child, but this charge was not pressed. Mr Baron Pi-^ott, at the outset of j the case, expressed great doubts whether the mere neglect to provide a sick child with medical assistance amounted to' a legal offence, arid -he reiriarked that at one time it was considered that when* death arose from the administration of homoeopathic medicines, it amounted to the worst description of manslaughter. His Lordship said he would, however, hear the evidence. Tho witnesses for the prosecution^

\ were then examined, v they .adimittedthat the prisonpr bad ) c,ar^f»4ly, attended! to the chiid^in .every respect e*xcept byi riot calhrig in medical assistance," DrJ Sharp said that the. death of tbe ; child arose from mflamtnatipri'./ f .should; have . employed leecfiesf'^ calomel, with *tW object ' of reducing the . inflammatory, symptoms; In, answer to questions ; put hy y the learned judge, the witnesses stated that many medical men would object to the emEloyment of calomel in such a case, and pmqepathic dpctprs, would almost think it ri^adbess, to employ leeches. Bareri -JPigott, at the close ef the evidence, expressed: his opinion t tnat no culpable negligence had, been proved against the prisoner, and thatfthe mere omi ssion to call in a^medidal man in such a case did not amquiit to a criminal 1 o^ence. He therefore directed the jury to return a verdict 1 of not guilty,, and the prisoner was ordered to he discharged.