802

the pharynx. The child rallied, but in a few hours aphasia,developed together with paralysis of the right side of theface and the right arm. The paralysis increased until therewere complete loss of sensibility and power of movement inthe entire right side of the body. The temperature rose to101&ogr;F. For three days the general condition remained stationary, though the tumour in the side of the neck gradu-ally disappeared. At the end of this time the nasal plugswere removed, after which there was some slight haemorrhage,but this was readily controlled by the use of local hæmo-statics. In the course of a month the child was able to beabout but could not walk unaided. Several months elapsed, however, before articulation was properly performed. A year later the patient had completely recovered the power of - speech and suffered only from slight disability in the use .of the right arm and talipes equinovarup, the latter beingrelieved by the use of proper apparatus. In his remarks

ion the case Dr. Franklin considers that it is onlynecessary to glance at the subsequent symptoms to I,confirm his first diagnosis of ulceration into the left ’,internal carotid artery ; for, explained in any other

way, the case becomes a most remarkable pathologicalcoincidence. Whether or not the paralysis was embolic inmature or due to cortical hmmorrhage or thrombosis is

certainly difficult to determine, but Dr. Franklin maintainsthat without a previous constitutional diathesis it is most

likely in a child to have been caused by an embolus of themiddle cerebral artery-a terminal branch of the internal’carotid.

THE POSSESSION OF DISEASED MEAT.

ON Feb. 24th the stipendiary magistrate of Bradford wasengaged in hearing a very important case. Mr. Albert

’Rendell, a draper, of the Trimming Shop," Kirkgate, andEldon Lodge, Bradford, was charged at the instance of theBradford Corporation, under Sections 116, 117, and 118 ofthe Public Health Act of 1875, with having in his

possession and intended for sale meat unfit for humanfood. William Hemmingway, meat inspector, said thaton Jan. 27th he inspected certain meat in the meat-

store at Eldon Lodge. Part of this meat consisted ofthe carcases of two sheep dressed for human food in

’the way in which butchers usually dressed them. One

,sheep was unfit for food, the meat being soft and wet.-F.e asked Mr. Rendell to let him see the internal organs of’both sheep and the skins, but the lungs and heart whichwere shown him did not belong to the carcase seized but to,a sound animal. One lung and a heart were missing andMr. Rendell gave no explanation of their absence. The skinof the carcase in question was unhealthy. Dr. W. A. Evans,the medical officer of health, gave evidence to the effectthat the carcase was quite unsound. In his opinion theanimal must have been in a dying condition when killed.Mr. Thomas Collins, M.R.C.V.S., Government inspector ofcattle disease for the district, and Mr. John Harrison, abutcher, also gave evidence to the same effect. On theother hand, Mr. William Rendell, the defendant’s bailiff,the labourer who had killed the sheep, Mr. Charles

Drabble, M.R.C.V.S., and Mr. H. Newsholme, M.R.C.V.S.,all gave it as their opinion that the meat was quite sound,Mr. Rendell adding that the sheep had no sign of diseasewhile alive. The stipendiary gave judgment on March lst.He found that the carcase in question had been legallyseized, that it was intended for the food of man, and wasunfit for food ; but it was not exposed for sale, or depositedfor sale, or for preparation for sale. In the case ofMallinson v. Carr, Mr. Justice Stephens, Mr. Justice Hawkinsagreeing, had stated that exposure for sale was not a

necessary ingredient of the offence ; knowledge of unfitnessfor food was immaterial. The defendant would be fined

£5 and 4 8s. costs or one months imprisonment, but he(the stipendiary) would state a case for a higher court,for it seemed to him that the judgment of Mr. Justice

Stephens and Mr. Justice Hawkins would enable an

inspector to enter the private larder of any person and seizehigh or rotten mutton, game, cheese, &c. The point at issueis very important. It seems clear that in this case the meatwas unwholesome and was intended for food, whether forthe defendant’s family or for his assistants at the

"Trimming Shop" does not much matter. As to whetherMr. Albert Rendell did not know that the carcase had beendressed or was bad there is the legal dictum, 11 Qai facit

per alium, facit per se"; his servant had killed anddressed the sheep, and as for not knowing, as Mr. Gilbert’sMikado observed, "There’s not a word about a mistakeor not knowing or having no notion....... That’s the

slovenly way in which these Acts are drawn." Weawait the decision of the Higher Court with interest,but we may for the present take an ordinary common.sense view of the matter and ask, would anybody takethe trouble to dress a carcase in the butchers’ usualmanner and hang it in his larder unless it were intended forhuman food ? As for the argument about game and cheese,if people like putrefying meat or cheese that has to be keptin a cage they are at liberty to eat it, but that is a differentmatter from diseased meat or meat that is generally eatenfairly fresh but has been allowed to go putrid before sale.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS AND PUBLICVACCINATORS.

A MATTER of some importance to public vaccinatorscame before the Helston Board of Guardians at their

meeting on Feb. 19th. As reported in the Cornishman ofFeb. 24th Mr. Williams brought before the board the caseof a man whose child had been vaccinated by the Towns-hend vaccination officer. "The child’s arm was very badand the doctor attended it four times. For this he hadsent in a bill for otl and he (Mr. Williams) believed ifthe amount was not paid immediately the man was

to be taken to the court....... The man attendedafter the vaccination because the child had a dreadfularm." Canon Tyacke thought if the vaccination was doneby the board’s officer in the usual way that he would bebound to attend the case after. The chairman: "Thatis so." It was then decided to ask the medical manfor an explanation. At the meeting held on March 5th,which was reported in the Cornishman of March 10th, a

letter was read from Dr. Chown wherein he explained thathe had vaccinated the child on Oct. 20th, 1897. Thechild was brought for inspection on Oct. 27th and thevaccination seemed to have been successful. A week later hewas sent for to visit the child on account of an inflamed armand for this and subsequent attendance he had sent in a billfor otl. He had never received any complaint from Mr.Curtis (the father of the child) or from anybody belongingto him. As for taking the man to the court there was notthe slightest foundation for such a statement. Mr. Williamssaid the woman got hurried aind paid the money and theman was down on his wife for doing it. The matter then

dropped. Why this matter ever came before the guardianswe cannot see. The legal responsibility of a public vacci-nator ends, as Dr. Chown told the board, with the inspec-tion of the arm on the eighth day. Dr. Chown was calledin as a private practitioner, for both Canon Tyacke and thechairman were wrong in thinking that a public vaccinatoris bound to attend a child gratuitously for illness aftervaccination. So much for Dr. Chown’s legal position.From the point of view of professional custom, since someof the guardians seem to have thought that no chargeought to have been made, we think that the bill