The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. Tuesday, January 26, 1892.

Waipawa Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 2713, 26 January 1892, Page 2

The Waipawa Mail. Published Tuesdays, Thursdays, & Saturdays. Tuesday, January 26, 1892.

The result of the Pahiatua inquest, though only what might have been expected, will cause wide-spread dissatisfaction and a sense of insecurity. So much time was allowed to elapse before any proceedings were taken, that the guilty party, if any crime had been committed, had facilities for destroying every possible clue to its discovery. In some quarters the police have been blamed for the inaction ; but it seems, from the report of the inquest, that the blame should be cast in another quarter. A doctor’s services were called in as soon as unfavorable symptoms were presented, and the police might therefore justifiably assume that he would take the initiative by informing them if any proceedings were necessary. As some people are under the impression that we cannot comment fairly on cases connected with the medical profession, we prefer, in this instance, to republish the following extracts from the N.Z. Times: medical evidence presents a curious complexion. Take, for example, the following sentences, which are copied from the examination of Dr A. C. Mii/ne, who said that he was called for at Woodville on Sunday, 27th ultimo, and reached Pahiatua between 7 and 8 o’clock the same evening. After arriving, he saw several sufferers, Mr and Mrs Naylor, two brothers Sedcole, and two other young men in the same house ; and Dr Milne then continues his evidence thus : “ After examining them, but more from what they told him, he concluded that they were suffering from the effects of an irritant poison. ITe was satisfied with the treatment Pidd, the chemist, had previously pursued, and instructed its continuance. He had not ascertained Emn’s

treatment, but assumed what' it.was from seeing his medicine there/’' He patients to take plenty of milfe.;* Inspector Thomson said that Me Eld) had treated them £qr. indigestion. Witness said the same treatment would apply to the case of irritant poisoning, except that in the latter it would require to be a little more energetic. He did tell some of the patients they had partaken of an irritant poison, but not in sufficient quantities to cause death. Inspector Thomson asked why witness had not communicated with the police as to the fact that a person was suffering from poison P Witness replied: I suppose it must be put down to my ignorance or want of knowledge of the matter, and the fact that I did not think the case sufficiently serious Inspector Thomson said he wished merely to show that the police were not responsible for the delay. To Inspector Thomson : He had not given instructions for any vomit to be kept, as his opinion was that the poison had been arsenic, used as the coloring matter of the bridal cake, which was sometimes the case/’ Dr Milne was satisfied with Mr Eidd’s treatment, which he 4< had not ascertained/’ but merely assumed from seeing the medicine, and it appears that he is of opinion that the same treatment as applied to indigestion would “ apply to a case of irritant poisoning.” It was a great pity that Dr Milne was ignorant of the proper method of immediately reporting to the police cases of poisoning, as much time was lost by reason of the delay. It matters not whether poison is taken by inadvertence or administered by design, all symptoms of poisoning should be at once reported to the authorities, in order to stay further evil, such as in cases of accidentally mixing in food stuffs, as in the recent case of salt mixed with arsenic, or to lead to detection of any possible criminal act. No doubt in his next toxicological case Dr Milne will be careful to recollect and act on these sound rules of practice, and also in such cises, whether he thought symptoms serious or not, to preserve for testing purposes all things necessary to be preserved. Careful study of Taylor’s Medical Jurisprudence will show how strictly such rules must be obsjirved. An astounding, and we cannot believe other than an utterly erroneous statement, was made by Dr Milne to the effect that arsenic is sometimes used as “ coloring matter for bridal cakes!” Good heavens ! How such an idea could have occurred to a medical man is a perfect enigma. We have heard of a harmlessly minute percentage of ammonia being used in certain classes of confectionery ; and also of cochineal, equally safe and innocuous, being employed for coloring purposes, but arsenic, deadly arsenic, and for bridal cakes ! Surely, surely, Dr Milne is as utterly at sea in this opinion as we should be in attempting an operation for lithotomy. One other point requires particular notice and scrutiny. Who was the man with a “ short coat” and a “ brown hard-hitter hat,” who was seen close to the scullery where the sliced lamb was left, who refused to reply to Mrs Naylor’s question, and who stole silently away into the darkness ? Who and where is he, and who and what are his relationships and surroundings ? The locality is not large, and it is presumable that some clue to lead to a clearing up of the mystery should be attainable. Can it be ascertained who has purchased poisons either in this town or any neighboring borough ? The law provides for a strict record of all such transactions. Enquiries have, our report says, been made in this direction, but without effect. The fact is that arsenic is so largely employed for sheep washing purposes, that it is to be found in barrels and half barrels at many stations, and not always sufficiently guarded. It is, therefore, a fact that this lethal poison may, without difficulty, be surreptitiously obtained. It seems from the evidence that this fatal case cannot be ranked as a purely accidental occurrence. The mystery surrounding it has to be solved, but we cannot say that the attitude assumed by the jurors before the coroner has tended to expedite the desired solution.”