CORONERS INQUEST.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2193, 18 May 1870, Page 2

CORONERS INQUEST.

The City Coroner (Mr T. M. Hocken) held an inquiry yesterday, touching the death of a married Avoinan, named Janet King, who died in child-bed on Saturday last. The jury was composed of sixteen persons, of whom Mr H. F. Hardy wa* chosen foreman, The following evidence was given : Mary Agnes Welsh, a married woman, and neighbor of deceased, said she had known her since ISG.'h She was a pretty healthy woman during that time. Stayed with her on Friday until Mrs Waterhouse, the midwife, came. Thea went away, returning at seven p.m., and remained until one o’clock qp Saturday morning. Asked Mrs Waterhouse how deceased was. Slje replied, much about the same j that she v'as not mailing much progress ; that the labor pains did not seem to be useful ones. At about eight on Saturday told Mrs Waterhouse she thought deceased was looking very ill, and thought it won d he better to get medical assistance for the sake of herself and patient. Mrs Waterhouse said she would wait a little. Returned at twenty minutes to eleven, when Mrs Waterhouse proposed to send for a doctor. In some of her previous confinements deceased was delivered with instruments. Id avia Wright in her evidence merely corroborated the previous witness. About ten o’clock on Friday night, Mrs Waterhouse said to her that Mrs King would not be hotter for some time—the labor was not advancing at all; that all wasn’t right; that the child would not be born, she thought, wifhout instruments, Left her about one o'clock in labor.

Another witness gave unimportant evidence.

Ellen Waterhouse, a married woman, after being cautioned that she need not give evidence unless she desired, said I was sent for to attend the deceased at about live o’clock on Frinay afternoon last. She was in bed when I arrived and showed no signs of labor, nor did any signs appear during the night. It was the next morning, when I did not like her appearance, that I said I thought some assistance should be gat ; that was about half past ten o’clock on Saturday morning ; I spoke to Mrs Walsh. No change , took place in her appearance until I sent for Dr Sorlcy ; she then appeared to be falling away. [The witness then gave evidence that cannot be repeated. Its effect was that from certain appearances what was afterwards termed the rapture, took place about half-au-hour before Dr Sorley’s arrival at morn] Before the doctor’s arrival efforts were made to advance the labor, when he arrived she was delivered, and she died soon afterwards. There was no sign of labor up to half-past ten on Saturday morning. Noticed nothing amiss until deceased commenced vomiting. Warm gruel was the ouly thing administered. I deny having said to Mrs Wright on Friday evening at about ten o’clock that deceased would not be better for some time, and that the child could not be dolivered without instruments. I said nothing about instruments. Tue othe, part of the conversation took place at 10 on Saturday morning. I deny that on Friday night Mrs Welsh told me that it would be better for my sake and that of the child that medical assistance should be got. That was said on Saturday morning. [The witnesses referred to were here called in. Mrs Wright said she thought the statement she referred to was made on Friday night. She was rather confused about hours. At all events it was before four o’clock on Saturday morning, and some considerable time befo-e Dr Sor'.ey was sent for. Mrs Welsh said the statement she referred to was made, she thought, about seven on Saturday morning ] I attended on her coMinemeut previous to this one. That time she was bad three days, and the pains were more severe than in this, Found nothing wrong except the vomiting. The navel cord prosented itself during the night, but the child could not be felt. [The witness here gave evidence of a delicate character. ] Dr Sorley stated that at about a quarter to twelve on Saturday morning he was called in to attend the deceased, She was then in a sinking state. As the only means of saving the ohild, he at once proceeded to deliver the woman. Ten minutes after he entered the house she died. The baby was dead before delivery. He then went on to state that rupture of the womb caused by pressure had baen the cause of death, and that there had been real labor pains. From the evidence he had heard, he was inclined to say that the rupture was caused by protracted labor. The woman was too long in labor without progressing, and she ought to have been delivered artificially. If a doctor had been present, she would have been delivered by instruments, and if an intelligent attendant had been present, she ought to have sent for a doctor. He did not form an opinion ; he jusc accounted for the death. There must have been misconception on Mrs Waterhouse’s part that tne womb was not dilated. Something should have been done hours before witness was sent for. Dr Hulme deposed that he made a pi # mortem examination of the body in conjunction with Dr Alexander on Monday-. Death was caused by rupture of the womb. He could ouly suggest the cause of the rupture. He assumed there had been a “presentation,” because lie saw no reason why the child should not have been born. He was inclined to think there hj id been a cross birth; and there could be no question there had been contractions of the uterus, and that there had been labor pains. He did not think the rupture would have taken place if a medical man had been called in at an earlier period. Dr Alexander corroborated Dr Hulme’s evidence as to the post-mortem examination. He was of opinion that had proper skilled advice been had hours before it was, the case would have turned out differently. He saw no reason why it should not. It was evidently a case which required skilled interference. Judging from the evidence, the labor pains were healthy, and not spurious ones as stated; and the jirobability was that it was a cross birth. The Coroner, in summing up, said that the jury could come to no other conclusion than that the woman had died from rapture of the womb ; but the important question for the jury to decide was whether the rupture was caused by any carelessness or want of attention on the part of the midwife. Any person might attend on these occasions—even qu uneducated woman—but she must bring to the task treated a full knowledge of it, and must prove herself skilled. H death resulted from want of skill or knowledge on her part, it then became a question for a jury to consider whether a charge of manslaughter should not be returned against the person. As it happened in many of those cases, there was very little direct evidence. Mrs Waterhouse was the only interested witness, and she stated that there were no evidences of labor. Those women who were round the unfortunate woman said the pains did not appear to be real ones, but spurious pains, as they were termed. But seeing that the uterus ivi’s raptured, and that rupture spoke of exercise, and some great force, and the probability the Avqmb Avqs hgalpby, there was a presentation, and an apgearance of the navel cord, it might lie safely coijclutfed that the e was real labor, notwithstanding Avhat Mrs Waterhouse had said to the contrary. Mrs Waterhouse further stated she felt no presentation, nor, indeed, any part of the child. Any properly skilled person or medical man not feeling any presentation would have known that there was a cross birth, for the very good reason that he dpi nqt fepi Avhqt he ought tq have felt. All that was presumable, and it npist have been apparent to the Avornen that from the deceased’s very haggard appearance she thought there Avas something wrong. As he had before stated, there was no direct evidence, but it Avas quite possible, even taking the doctors’ evidence into consideration, that the rupture Avas OAving to some unforeseen accident; but it seemed to him highly improbable. There was an important discrepancy in the evidence. He thought there could be no doubt that the Avilm ss Wright bad stated correctly when she said that it Avas between ten o’clock on Friday night and four o’clock on Saturday morning that she saw something was amiss, and asked Mrs Waterhouse to send for aid. It was a question for the jury which avituess they would believe. If they thought the rupture was avoidable, and that Mrs Waterhouse should have scut for skilled assistance

before, it would be their duty to bring a verdict of manslaughter against her, but if they believed her statement that there was no real labor, and the pains were spurious ones, and that, as it occasionally happened, the Avomb gave way accidentally, the verdict Avould be one of accidental death, and that no blame was attachable to Mrs Waterhouse, If in these c ises all ivent well, the midwife got all the praise, but it often went badly, and as he had frequently seen, resulted in prolonged illness, or a destroyed constitution; and if, as frequently happened, it resulted in death, it became a very important matter. It therefore behoved the jury to give the subject every attention. A juror here interrupted, and obsen-ed that he thought it would be well if the medical men in the city came to some understanding to charge a reduced fee in these cases. Poor men were not able to employ medical men in consequence of their high fees. In such matters neighbors did not like to send for a doctor, because they were responsible for his fees. The Coroner said that Avas a matter totally beside the question the jury had consider. He must say he did not see any great difficulty in obtaining medical men. From the evidence in the present case, it appeared the midwife Avas singularly ignorant of her duties. The jury were engaged three-quarters of an hour considering the verdict; and ulti. mately thirteen of them returned a verdict of “ accidental death.” The Coroner : Have you no rider to give ? The Foreman : The jury do not th nk that any rider they may give will bo of any benefit. The Coroner : 1 think the sooner jmies are done away with the better.The inquiry then terminated.