1099

A TYPICAL CASE OF FOOT AND MOUTH DISEASE:INTERESTING ILLUSTRATIONS.

WE are indebted to Mr. T. R. D. Carruthers, of St. Vincent-street, Edinburgh, for the interesting photographs whichwe reproduce below. The infected cow was attacked during the recent outbreak of this disease in Edinburgh, and the darkmarkings on the tongue and at the division of the hoof indicate well the site and appearance of the disease. The

photographs were from specimens supplied by Professor J. R. U. Dewar, Principal of the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College,Edinburgh.

MEDICINE AND THE LAW.

Bromn v. Butler Negligenoe in Supplying Impure Wate’l’.AN action, the hearing of which lasted for several days,

ended recently in a verdict awarding damages to a widow,Mrs. Margaret Sophy Brown, in respect of the death ofher husband, formerly farm bailiff at the Three Counties

Asylum, Arlesey, Bedfordshire. The defendant was suedas the clerk to the committee of visitors of the asylum andthe claim was based upon the alleged negligence of thedefendant in supplying impure water for the consumptionof the deceased with the result that he contracted entericfever and died. There was a further allegation of negli.gence with regard to the medical attendance suppliedto him under his contract of service, but this portion ofthe claim was abandoned after the evidence had shownthat it could not be sustained. The evidence proved thatthe water supplied to the inmates of the asylum and to thecottage of the deceased, which was within the groundsbelonging to the asylum, was derived from two wells andthat it went through a softening process, being afterwardspumped up to water towers whence it reached the con-snmers. It was part of the widow’s case that drains con-veying sewage matter from the asylum to a sewage farmpassed near one of the wells and were found to be in a verybad state after the death of her husband had taken place,and apparently Sir Thomas Stevenson (who was calledfor the defence) had found the bacillus coli present inthe water, and Mr. G. F. Deacon, C.E. (also a witnessfor the defence), had attributed the enteric fever tothe condition of the water-supply in a report madeby him upon the subject. There was conflicting evidence

as to the nature and extent of the complaints madeby the Browns with regard to the water-supply and as toadmissions by officials of the asylum before his death withregard to its defects, but the fact that the plaintiff had beenalarmed at the appearance of the water was established,although it was not admitted on behalf of the defence thatits turbid condition, to which she called attention, wascaused by the presence in it of dangerous matter or wasconnected with her husband’s illness. For the defence itwas contended that the deceased had visited Yarmouth fora few days’ holiday, returning on July 25th, 1906, andthat his illness, of which he first complained on August 22ndand from which be died on Oct. lst, was, or might have been,contracted there; that no trace of enteric fever contami-nation was traceable in the water, and that if the water hadbeen contaminated a general outbreak in the asylum wouldhave taken place inevitably and not merely a single caseoutside it. There was also evidence that cases of entericfever had occurred in the neighbourhood, this being givenpresumably in order to show that, should the jury not ascribethe disease which affected the deceased to his visit toYarmouth, there were still sources other than the waterfrom which it could have been derived. Sir ThomasStevenson, in his evidence, supported the view that a

general outbreak should have taken place had the waterbeen to blame, and explained that his report as to theundesirable condition of the water was due to the presenceof the bacillus coli only. He also spoke of Yarmouth as aplace in which the deceased would be likely to contractenteric fever. Mr. Deacon explained that a passage in areport made by him in which he said that " I think thatthere is no room to doubt that the outbreak was caused bythe water " was based upon a mistaken belief that a general