H.—22a

35

Mr. McVeagh: What was the state of the body when it was exhumed?— With the exception of a little destruction of the superficial structures of the limbs, the body was in an exceedingly good state oi preservation. The peritoneum and contents of the abdomen were well preserved. How many incisions were there in the. abdomen ?—Two. The witness then described the examination of the specimens removed from the body, wiiich took place on the day following the exhumation, the same persons being present as at the exhumation. The seals were broken by Mr. Gresham, who had affixed them the day before. Mr. Savage then with the aid of an anatomical chart explained the results of his examination of the remains, which he had already reported upon to Dr. MacGregor. He said that the stomach and the first part of the bowel (duodenum) were first examined. On the surface of the stomach, close to its junction with the bowel, were a series of silk stitches. In the bowel, just beyond the end of the stomach, there was a second series of stitches. The bowel and stomach were then filled with water. The first series of stitches proved watertight, but the second series were not quite watertight. The stomach was then cut open and examined. Its surface showed no evidence of ulceration or perforation anywhere. The first series of stitches were then removed, and the surface of the stomach beneath shown to be healthy The first part of the bowel was opened, and beneath the second series of stitches an ulcer was found. The stitches were then removed, and it was seen that this ulcer had perforated. The large intestine (caecum) and the first part of the large bowel were found to bo normal, and the appendix healthy. In the caecum there was an incision about 1J in. in length, closed by silk stitches. A little higher up was a second incision, closed by three stitches. This measured i in. Mr. McVeagh: Were the two incisions in the colon large enough to permit of the extraction of faecal concretions, say, as large as a walnut?--The larger one, yes. The Chairman: There were two incisions, then?— There were. Mr. McVeagh: Could one be described as a puncture?—l think not. The Chairman: What would be the reason for stitching up the wall of the stomach?— The only reason I could give is that the operator thought a perforation was present when it was not. Mr. McVeagh: You have performed a number of operations for appendicitis yourself?— Yes, a considerable number. Did the colon in White's case show signs of distension?—A little was gas. Mr. McVeagh: Was there anything to prevent all that scybalae (hardened faeces) being taken out through the first incision?— No. Do you consider that the two intestinal incisions could be justified for any purpose? Mr. Savage (after consideration) : I think not. Mr. McVeagh: Would it be justifiable to make two incisions for the purpose of removing two pieces of faeces each about as large as a walnut?—l think not. Would it be justifiable to make one incision for the same purpose? —In this instance I can see no reason for it. Assuming that the colon had been distended by gas, would it have been justifiable to puncture the colon to admit of the escape of gas in order to get at the appendix?—l do not think it would have been necessary. It being your opinion that there was no necessity for either incision, supposing the anaesthetist was urging the question of time on the operator, would the operator be doing the proper thing in making these two incisions?— That question is already answered. I have said that there was no need to make them. In such an operation ; especially when the appendix is found to be normal, time is of great importance?— Yes. 1 understand you recently performed an abdominal operation on a child. How long did it take you?— Under twenty minutes. That would be rapid?— Yes, fairly quick. Why the rapidity?—On account of the child's condition. Assuming that it had been necessary to puncture the ascending colon to admit of the escape of gas, could not the puncture have been made so as to admit of it being closed with one suture?— Yes. Would the condition of the stomach justify the statement that there was more than one perforation beyond the incisions?— No. The Chairman: There was no perforation at all in the stomach ? -No. Mr. Reed (to Mr. Savage): Have you seen the report on the exhumation furnished by Dr. Bedford to the Hospital Board? It is slightly different from yours, I think?—No, I have not seen it. Mr. Reed handed the report to Mr. Savage, who, after reading it, said, " I entirely disagree with a great deal of it." Mr. Reed: In what respect? Mr. Savage: Am I supposed to answer that? I am prepared to demonstrate the correctness of my report. Dr. Bedford is not present, and I do not think I should be asked to criticize his report in his absence. The Chairman said that it would be proper to answer the questions. Mr. Reed: Dr. Bedford will be called, but I am putting these questions in fairness to you. In what way do you disagree with his report?—He speaks of two ulcers. That is not so. The question has not been discussed at all between you and Dr. Bedford?— No.