Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Mrs M'Connon or Reid, wife of Alexander Reid, and residing at 78 George Street, Whiteinch, sued Patrick Coyle, druggist and Licentiate of the Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons, Glasgow, 300 Dumbarton Road, Partick, for £250 damages for alleged slander.

The following issues were adjusted by the Second Division for the trial of the cause—“Whether, on or about 15th October 1891, in the house 42 Smith Street, Whiteinch, occupied by Stephen Moore, the defender falsely and calumniously stated to the said Stephen Moore that the pursuer had poisoned his wife Mrs Agnes Moore, or used words to a like effect, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? (2) Whether, on or about 17th October 1891, in said house 42 Smith Street, the defender falsely and calumniously stated to the said Stephen Moore that the pursuer had poisoned his wife Mrs Moore, by a drug she had given her, or used words to a like effect, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? (3) Whether, on or about 19th October 1891, and in or near Dumbarton Road, Partick, Glasgow, the defender falsely and calumniously stated to the said Stephen Moore that there was no doubt that his wife Mrs Moore had been poisoned by the pursuer, and that he ought to give information to the police authorities to that effect, or used words to a like effect, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer? (4) Whether, on or about 20th October 1891, and in Dumbarton Road near Whiteinch, the defender falsely, calumniously, and maliciously, and without probable cause, stated to Archibald Mackenzie, detective-officer, Partick, that Mrs Moore, wife of Stephen Moore, had been poisoned by a drug given to her by the pursuer, which had caused her death, or used words to that effect, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?” The trial took place upon 19th, 20th, and 21st October, and the jury found for the pursuer on the 1st and 4th issues, and on the 2nd and 3rd for the defender. The defender obtained a rule upon the pursuer to show cause why there should not be a new trial upon the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence.

It appeared that upon 12th October 1891 the pursuer was called in as a midwife to attend the wife of Stephen Moore in her confinement. Mrs Moore was besides suffering from a suppuration in her thumb. The pursuer gave her a dose of ergot of rye, the operation of which is to ease the pains of labour, but which should not be given until labour has begun. It was admitted that the pursuer was entitled and was a fit person to use ergot of rye if she used it properly. The size of the dose was a contested point, the pursuer stating she had given an ordinary dose of half a teaspoonful, the husband stating that his wife had alleged the amount to be half a teacupful. Upon the same day Dr Macaulay was called in to see Mrs Moore, and upon Thursday 15th October the defender was called in for consultation. Labour came on upon Friday, and a child was born which died upon Saturday. Mrs Moore died upon Sunday, and upon Monday Moore got this certificate of death from Dr Macaulay—“Said to be some drug—gangrene of hand and arm.” He took this to the registrar, and was told to go to the police office. A post-mortem examination of Mrs Moore's body was made under a warrant of the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, and the result was that the examiner found the cause of death was blood poisoning due to putrefactive changes of the tissue of the hand. Dr Dunlop, who conducted the examination, deponed that he thought it impossible that this condition could have been caused by the administration of ergot of rye.

Mrs Reid, the pursuer, deponed—“On Monday, 12th October 1891, I was called by Stephen Moore to attend his wife in confinement. I had attended her before, and had been engaged for this confinement. I went to Mrs Moore's house. I did not expect confinement so soon. She said she felt very ill, and complained of pains in the abdomen. I examined her; she had symptoms of premature labour. She was very feverish and excited. She said she felt very ill, and asked if I had nothing that would give her ease. I had nothing but labour-tea, which I thought might cause the pains to cease for a little. I gave her half a teaspoonful of ergot of rye in water. It was the liquid extract. It is understood to assist labour. She took it, and said she felt a little better. The pains left her. She complained of dimness of sight. When I was leaving she said her thumb was festering. I advised an oatmeal poultice with soda. I saw her thumb. There was a wound on the side, and there was a swelling up the arm. I was there about one hour ten minutes. I left word, if she got worse, to send for me immediately. I heard no more till 7 p.m. that day, when I got a message that I would not be required, as they had called in a doctor.”

Stephen Moore deponed—“My wife supplied me with the information that she had died from an overdose of poison. She told me several times that she had been poisoned. Dr Coyle never told me that she had died of poisoning. I never asked Dr Coyle what my wife died of. I knew the cause of my wife's death. My wife told me. Dr Coyle did not tell me what she died of. I did not ask Dr Coyle what she had died of…

Page: 337↓

I recollect my wife's arm getting inflamed. I went for Dr Macaulay on Monday the 12th. Her arm had not been inflamed before that. He recommended linseed poultice. Dr Macaulay called a second time on the Monday; and on Tuesday, 13th October, my wife's hand was lanced. The swelling got worse. Dr Coyle was called in on Thursday. Dr Coyle on that day said, after examining the state of my wife and her hand, ‘My dear woman, you are poisoned.’ Before he made his examination, my wife had informed him that Mrs Reid had been there. He said nothing to me about Mrs Reid… . (Q) After seeing your wife did he call you aside?—(A) Yes, on the second time. He said—‘My good man, I can do nothing for you. Perhaps your wife may not live over to-night.’ That was all. My wife called me to her bedside. Dr Coyle did not say then she had been poisoned. I did not ask him the cause of her condition. I thought from what Dr Coyle said that she was still suffering from the poison.”

Dr Macaulay deponed—“Taking together the sickness, prostration, paralysis of bladder and lower limbs, discolouration of vomit, and the fact that half a cupful was the quantity of ergot administered, I attributed these (gangrenous) symptoms to the administration of the ergot. I am still of that opinion. I found proof of that on Wednesday, and before the woman died. The loss of power of limbs, both feet, and arms, was so significant of poisoning. Half a teacupful of ergot of rye is undoubtedly a poison. … I called late on Thursday, and was sent for early on Friday. She was in labour, and the baby was shortly after born. The appearance of the child, its discoloured condition, and the absence of natural discharges, confirmed my opinion as to the excess of the dose of ergot. I think I have only once attended a confinement where there was such absence of natural discharge. That suggested an overdose of ergot. I thought the bluish colour of the baby was the effect of the ergot through the mother's blood. There was nothing peculiar about the delivery; nothing which would account for the condition of the child.”

Dr Coyle deponed—“I got a message from Dr Macaulay on Thursday 15th October, and met him about mid-day in Moore's house. We went over case. I found the case very difficult. The low condition of the woman, and the marked development of gangrene in her hand puzzled me. I was quite at a loss. Dr Macaulay had made incisions to relieve tension, so as to promote circulation. Mrs Moore told me that on Monday morning she had got half a teacupful of labour tea from Mrs Reid. I was much surprised. Dr Macaulay had mentioned that briefly on our way up. She told me she had become sick and giddy, had lost power of walking, her arms were affected, and she had lost use of bladder. Generally she felt very ill. She said—‘Mrs Reid has poisoned me.’ I said that is a very serious thing to say. She repeated it. Dr Macaulay and I thought that the circulation of blood was seriously affected in the arm. There having been a slight wound on thumb, its circulation would be weakened, and we thought that the gangrene which developed was due to action of ergot on debilitated constitution of a pregnant woman, and showed first in hand because of enfeebled circulation due to wound. Ergot affects bloodvessels, and leads to constriction and obstruction, and that with local impaired circulation might cause gangrene, there being debilitated condition of system. That is my view now… . Cross.—As to the first issue, I made the general remark to Moore that I thought his wife had been poisoned. I went into no particulars. I was answering Moore's question, and I had in my mind the phenomena of the case. In using the word poisoned, I referred to nothing but the ergot… . Regarding the fourth issue, the statement I made was a brief resume of the case, and that I had been informed that Mrs Reid had given half a teacupful of labour tea. That I could not explain phenomena on ordinary grounds, and that I believed that the dose had been given; and if so, that it had had a poisonous effect on the deceased woman.”

In support of her averment that the defender had entertained feelings of hostility towards her since September 1891, the pursuer called a Mrs Peters, who deponed that in that month her child was attended by the defender. A syringe for an enema was required, and a neighbour applied to the pursuer for it. “Mrs Reid came. She asked if there was a doctor attending, and was unwilling to interfere lest the doctor should be angry. She treated the child. Dr Coyle came next morning. He asked me if I had got the enema. I said no. I said a friend had come up to see baby after he had left, and that she had no small enema, and did not think it required on. He asked if it was Mrs Reid, the midwife. I said yes. He said I don't approve of these midwives. He was not very angry, and said he would come back. Cross.—Dr Coyle had been treating the child, and had ordered a starch enema. Mrs Reid advised me to give it starch by the mouth. I told Dr Coyle that she had advised that instead of giving starch by enema it should be given by mouth. It was then he said he disapproved of these midwives. That was all he said. He attended the child till its recovery.”

Archibald Mackenzie, a detective-officer in the police office, deponed—“I met Dr Coyle on the Tuesday before postmortem examination, before 12 o'clock. I told him that there was to be a postmortem examination at 12·30. He said that there was no doubt that the woman died of poison by a drug given to her by the midwife Mrs Reid. He also said that she was a dangerous woman to be at large, and that she should get penal servitude. He said he had no doubt she was a murderess in this case. I heard the result of the post-mortem by Dr Dunlop. Dr Dunlop's account differed from Dr Coyle's statement. Cross.—I did not mention to

Page: 338↓

anyone that Mrs Reid was a murderess or deserved penal servitude till I told it to defender's agent when he called on me… I took his statement to be made to me in my character as police officer inquiring about this matter.”

At advising—