The late Sergeant Price.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3830, 12 June 1891, Page 3

The late Sergeant Price.

i . [To THE EdITOB.] J was not a little astonished at the effrontery displayed by Dr Beard in his letter appearing m your issue of yesterday, impugning my evidence given, at the late inquest. _ It contains so many statements in which I regret I cannot concur, (purely imaginative) that I am constrained to notice a few of the more glaring instances which, I think, might prove to be of public interest. Ist. He com.-.-plains that "I am credited with say- - itog, that he (Sergeant Price) was sffl&ring from inflammation of the windpipe:" In this, I believe he is correct, he did not say so, (though he ■would have been much nearer the mark if he had). Mrs Price says she meant the top of the windpipe or larynx J a very venial mistake considering her state of mind at the time she gave her evidence. The Sergeant and his wife repeatedly iaformed both Dr McLoughlin and myself, on the our first visit on Sunday evenWEi ß *, that Dr Beard had frequently informed them that " he had not the slightest Bign of bronchitis or other disease of the cheßt below the -level of the larynx at the top of the and that- all his disease was centred actually drawing a diagram explanatory of the same," Moreover, Mrs Price informed us that Dr Beard severely reproved her for daring to apply a linseed and mustard* poultice to the Sergeant's chest at the urgent solicitation of her friends who assured her that the Sergeant had sev itis, and which we both examination to be the case. 2nd. It appears to nie a singular circumstance that Dr Beard never once mentioned to his patient or his friends his suspicions of tumour in the chest, ma|ignant or otherwise,and further on writes, "that tumour could not be discovered on most searching examination." It is.given to some J persons to daily wander over precious atones in the rough and not to be 'ranched thereby. As a matter of fact both Dr McLoughlin and myself, within a few minutes after entering - the house, at once discovered the upper portion of the cancerouß glandular tumour at the root of the neck, which it appears had been known and complained of by the sergeant for many days, and more over £&d been created, we _ were . informed,.by Dr Beard as a simple enlarged gland,' which would soon disappear by the use;of gentle friction with warm olive oilit This tumeur, from its intense hardness,we diagnosed spfrobablya "cancerous infiltration" from some deeper seated disease within the chest ~ and which was proved by the post mortem to have been the chief cause of all the symptoms during life by pressure on the nerves of the muscles of the larynx .and on the windpipe for about five inches, two inches almost occluding the pipe, by flattening, so that it would have been impossible to have relieved by introducing a tube into the windpipe,which we took with us for the purpose j and further was the exciting cause of the ••• severe bronchitis from which the serJE&nt suffered so much latterly. As ""$Eb Price said in her evidence, I personally gave her no hope of . recovery on account,of the presence of the tumour.in her - Jfiisband's neck 3rd. The narrowing of tbe windpipe ought to have teen discovered during life by means of the laryngoscope, and as a matter of fact I believe was by D r McKenzie who told the Sergeant that his was one of the most severe and hopeless eases he had seen, and urged him to return home at once. This Mrs Price informs m^to-day. If Dr really said that there was dilatation of the heart,' he was simply mistaken, (as' many a better man might be sometimes), careful post mortem examination proving that the heart was not dilated, but perfectly healthy, and showing that suffocation was tbe immediate cause of death. It is unfair, however,„to say anything about this, as Dr Beard has not given tbeidate of DrMcKerizie's examination, as the disease must lave made most rapid strides since that time from its peculiar nature. Lastly, in answer to the gratuitous assumptions contained in his concluding paragraph, I may state that there was not one symptom of inflammation of; the lungs, hypostajjc or otherwise, observable before or after death. The lung tissue proper was quite healthy, spongy and crepitating throughout, with the exception of the portion at the root of the lung, which was invaded by the cancerous mass. But there wad bronchitis of the larger tubes which were quite full with bronchi! ic exudation, -and which was the ultimate cause of death by suffocation, as detailed in evidence at the inqaest. It is not my intention to enter into any further discussion on ihis case, as I think an intelligent y-and discriminating public will find sufficient material in what has now been written to assist them in forming a Bonnd opinioit «n the matter- at issue between Dr Beard and myself. I am, sc.~, W. H. Hoskmig. [TO THE EMTOB.]

Sib,-—Dr Hoekisg has asked me to append to -his letter a. short epitome of the facts as disclosed by port mortem examination on the :body..of the late Sergeant Price. OwuHbto the injared state of the docflgVatm, I assisted him, and chiet operator in making the examination. The heart and spongy tissue of the lungs were found to be normal, but the windpipe, which was loaded with bronchial mucous, instead ot forfiting a circular cylindrical tube, was for the space of about

fire inches impinged upon, and for two inches, narrowed to a slit, by » the intimate pressure of a large cancerous growth situate on the right aspect of neck, and which was plainly discernible to' botlx Bight and , touch during :life. The larynx was slightly congested, but showed no other sign of disease; I was not present at the inquest, but having read the account of the same in your issue of yesterday I cannot but in justice to Dr Hosking, endorse the evidence as given by him.. Being associated with Dr Hosking in- the case during the Sergeant's life, I quite agreed with his diagnosis and treatment, and the autopsy, proves him .to have been right beyond all doubt. X am, &c.,

T, J. HacLooghlin, L.B.C.P. Edin., clc.

[xo the editob.] Sib,—Having read Dr Beard's letter in your issre of yesterday, I beg to contradict some of the statements made therein. In mj evidence at the on my late husbani', I made a plight, mistake in saying that-Dr

Beard told me that he was suffering from inflammation of the windpips What Dr Beard told me was that m husband was suffering from a collect tion of phlegm aiound the windpipe, which was the sole cause of all the trouble. I asked Dr Beard whether the bronchial tubes or lungs were affected as I wished to apply poultices. He said the lungs were quite sound and there was no bronchial trouble, so that poultices would do no good, and that he did not believe in them. When I phowed him the lumps in the neck he said it was a swelling of the glands which required rubbing with a little warm oil when it would soon disappear. Dr Beard, in his letter to Dr McKenzie, did not mention anything about the presence of a tumour. I have seen Dr Hosking's letter to you and quite concur in all lie states therein.—l am, etc.

M. Pbice,