Truth : a libel by law : the evidence of Sir J.Y. Simpson, bart., M.D., and others, in the case of Sharp versus Wilson, with diagrams and correspondence / by James Wilson.

  • Wilson, James, L.F.P.S.
Date:
1869
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Truth : a libel by law : the evidence of Sir J.Y. Simpson, bart., M.D., and others, in the case of Sharp versus Wilson, with diagrams and correspondence / by James Wilson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    136/152 (page 122)
    the dofoudor conimonocd pvactioo iu Ciilleu; and it is not surprising tliat thn t^Rti mony of somo of the witnesses should, after the lapse of ten ycars^be inaccurate On ono point the evidence is directly contrary, and that with regard to a matter on which it 13 difficult to suppose a mistake. The pursuer says he did not bleed this woman. I think it proved that he did bleed her, and to a very consider- able extent. Four witnesses—Mrs Wood, Mrs Slater, old Mrs Mair, and Mrs John Slair—concur in speaking distinctly and decidedly to this fact, and to the circum- stances attending it. I observe that the Lord Ordinary is of opinion that the fact of bleeding is estabhshed, notwithstanding the pursuer's denial; and in this I think ho IS right. Looking to the evidence of Sir James Y. Simpson—certainly the highest authority on the subject-1 cannot hold that bleeding in the course of the first labom- is necessarily malpractice, though it is not the most approved practice at the present day; but the case occmTed ten years ago, and it was once a practice recog- msed and approved of by the faculty. Nor can I venture to say, in the face of Sir James Simpson's testimony, that the facts proved here, with regard to the woman's state, are such as to make the bleeding of her, in tho position in which she was clearly an improper or unskilful act. If, indeed, I might venture to express an opinion, I should say that, according to my humble judgment, the propriety of bleed- ing Mrs Mair in tho state of exhaustion in which she was, and after the sm-vivance of the child had been abandoned as hopeless, and after tho head of the child had been perforated, is, on the medical evidence before me, very questionable. Still, in the conflict of medical testimony, there is a doubt on the point; and, in a case of slander, in an unoaUed-for letter, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the per- son who has been slandered. The defender must prove his justification ; and, if he has left a doubt, that is a defect in his proof. On the other points of accusation with regard to this case of Mrs Mair—such as tho employment of unnecessary force, the use of unsuitable instruments, and the introduction of forceps at an improper time, I have only to observe that, while I cannot say that the case is satisfactorily explained, I am unable to find sufficient gi-ounds for differing from the Lord Ordinary. The defender has referred to part of the evidence taken for the pursuer on commis- sion in support of the allegation of tho improper iise of the forceps. It has been suggested that the evidence taken on commission in Banffshire is incompetent, and I incline to think that evidence of the treatment by the pursuer of particular patients not alluded to in the issue, nor mentioned in the record, was not competent; but, even though it were, I am not satisfied that it can receive the effect for which the defender contends, as corroborating the evidence with regard to the time and manner of the use of these forceps in the particular case of IMrs Mair. It rather appears to me that there has been some misapprehension on this matter. On the whole, I have arrived, not without difficulty, at the same conclusion as the Lord Ordinary, chiefly because of the ultroneous and uncaUed-for character of this letter, and of the great burden of proof which necessarily vested on the writer. I must express my regi-et —first, that the letter was written; then, that it was not destroyed by the receiver; then, that this action, giving greater publicity to it, was brought; and lastly, because of tho plea of justification that has been taken. LoKD OuHRiEHiLL—That is my opinion also. Lord President—That is my opinion also. Lord Dbas—I concur in the results stated by Lord Ardmillan. Interlocutor of Lord Ordinary adhered to, with expenses. Such, gentlemen, is the Interlocutor pronounced by the Judges of the Fust Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session, and which, in my humble opmion, is far fi-om cast- ing a halo of glory around our Scottish Bench. One Avould naturally suppose that men who have risen to the office of judge would shoAv, at least, something like common sense; but in the above, it cannot be said to appear. Lord Ardmilla^