A SUPPOSED CASE OF PTOMAINE POISONING.

New Zealand Mail, 15 February 1900, Page 5

A SUPPOSED CASE OF PTOMAINE POISONING.

AN INTELLIGENT VERDICT:

“When in doubt blame the ptomaine” would appear, to have become the rule with Coroners’ juries, ever since it was publicly announced by medical experts that under certain exceptional condi- ; tions ptomaine poisoning might result from eating the nutritious and tooth-, some product of our dairies. At the ; Thames; a few days ago, a presumably intelligent jury brought in. a verdict that - a child had “died from perrtmv- : itis, apparently produced by the niotber having partaken of cheese, which set up ptomaine poisoning.” The child, who was three and a half months bid’ ' was fed at the mother’s breast. It : seems' that the. night before the child’s death the mother * had eatea some cheese, which, after the drinking of some cocoa, disagreed with her. During the night the child was. taken ill, and the mother gave it the breast/ and ' ; early in the morning some bran Jy and water, and also some castor oil. The doctor, on examining the child’s body found large purple blotches all over the body and face. The - symptoms described by the fathey led him io con- : elude that the child was suffering from ' poisoning. He considered it was a case of ptomaine poisoning, though a a case of ptomaine poisoning had never before come under his notice. ; On a post-mortem examination, the organs generally were found to be healthy, but the internal covering o-f the intestines was inflamed which indicated peritonitis. liie medical man who made the examination declared that, the child died from ptomaine poisoning, because there was no other way of ac- - counting for its illness, as it. appeared to be quite well in the morning. Now, the symptoms of ptomaine poisoning are constriction of the throat, nausea, vomit ing anil purging, not one of which " was stated to have- beer, .present in the case of either the mother or the child. Two other children had also eaten some, of the cheese, and the grocer who sold it stated in evidence that he, too, had eaten a large quantity, but in non© of the cases were any ill-effects protluc* ; ed. In spite of all this the jury, guided by the medical evidence, returned' the verdict stated. The contents of the stomach of the child and some of the cheese are in the hands of the Go--1 vemmer.t Analyst in Auckland for his ” ; investigation. Some of th cheese- was • forwarded to Wellington and Mr Rud- • . dick found that, though dried up, it had a good flavour. A quantity of the cheese was eaten by Mr Ruddick and also by Mr Gilruth, the Government Bacteriologist, with no ill-effect, and the latter gentleman fed some mice, with a like absence of evil result. To H these at all familiar with the subject, the absurdity of the verdict is tod pal- “ pable to call for any action being taken " to counteract the false Impression* it • ' may create, but it is regrettable that blame should be attached to the product of one of our leading industries when there was- no direct evidence to ' support the “opinion.”

, Mr Townshend, the Auckland, grader-,... being fully alive to.the necessity of domg something to counteract any false impression the verdict may have created obtained the fullest particulars of. the case, also samples of the cheese and forwarded them to Mr Ruddick.