960 PARIS.-ROME.-VIENNA.

however, that the living uterine tissues are more easily per-meated by the " x " rays, for the images of six foetuses photo-graphed through the uterus of a living guinea-pig, and shownby Professor Pinard, are more clearly defined.

The AS’tecdy of Anatomy at Montpelher in Old Times.M. Gilis, Professor of Anatomy at Montpellier, has recently

published his inaugural lecture at that Faculty in the RevueScientfique. He reminded his audience that Montpellierwas during the Renaissance the great medical school ofFrance, and that crowds of foreigners repaired thither foreducational purposes. Some of these students becamecelebrated. It is sufficient to quote the names of Felix and ’,Thomas Plater. Felix and Gaspard Bauhin of Bale, and the Dane, Olaus Wormius. Despite the difficulty of procnring ’,subjects for dissection anatomy was ardently studied at the I,Faculty. The method adopted for collecting subje<hardly commend itself to nineteenth century id unightfall the students, attired in their cloaks and armed Iwith their swords, would sally forth on resurrectionist expedi- tions, the scene of their lugubrious operations being the cemetery of the Convent of Saint Denis. Arrived at their ’,destination they would frequently be accorded a rough recep- ’,tion by the monks armed with crossbows. The enthusiasmof the professors for their art sometimes carried them togreat lengths. Thus Rondelet begged his friend and

colleague, Fontanus, then very ill, to allow his body tobe dissected after death. Before his pupils he also dissectedthe single placenta of twins-his own children. Nor did heshrink from practising a public post-mortem examination ofthe body of his own son.

Pharmaceutical Frauds.The Paris Municipal Laboratory has been busy lately in

analysing specimens of quinine and antipyrin bought atdifferent drug establishments in the city. Numerous

samples were found to be adulterated with bicarbonate of sodium to the extent of 50 per c ent. It would appear alsothat iodoform gauze is extensively coloured with aurantine,and that such adulteration reduces the proportion of iodoform from the normal 25 per cent. to something below ,’;th percent. A good plan by which to discover the fraud is to soakthe suspected gauze in tepid water, when the aurantine, ifpresent, is dissolved and colours the water a brilliant yellow.March 31st.

ROME.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Anti-Malarial Measures.THE Marchese di Rudini, head of the new Government,

has begun well. I am not referring to his success inChamber and Senate in vindicating his programme, espe-cially as regards the African situation, but rather to theinitiative he has taken in furthering a far more commend-able policy--the reclamation of derelict or marsh landsfrom the fevers that haunt them and their subjection toagricultural industry. One of his very first acts hasbeen to issue a series of precautionary measures againstthe diffusion of epidemics of malaria, taking as his starting-point those localities devoted to rice cultivation. From theHome Office (of which he holds the portfolio) he has, underthe advice of the Consiglio Superiore di Sanit&agrave;, published apaper consisting of six articles or heads, conveying as manyordinances for protecting the labourers in rice cultivationand the districts in which it is carried on. The first dealswith the appointment of a Special Commission composed ofthe provincial medical authorities, an engineer, and an

agricultural expert, charged with the duty of testing andreporting to the Prefect the cases in which demands forrice cultivation may be safely conceded-cases, that isto say, where the concession of such demand can be freelygranted without compromising the health of the labourer orthe sanitary conditions of the vicinity. There are rules inexistence for the protection of both these interests-that ofthe working hands and that of the health of the surroundingpopulation-and guided by these the Commission will proceedto grant or withhold the concessions alluded to. Should theconcessionnaire in the process of carrying out his operationsdepart from the prescriptions laid down the Prefectshall then be empowered to withdraw the privilege con-ceded. Nay, more ; if, in spite of all due observanceof those prescriptions, the locality or the soil under

rice cultivation develop unforeseen conditions prejudicial tohealth, the Prefect shall again be entitled to intervene andwithdraw the concession or suppress the industry for a givennumber of years, always subject of course in so doing to theprovincial sanitary council as advised by the Commissionabove indicated. The concessionnaire shall have no claim to

indemnity for loss by the withdrawal of his concession.Other prescriptions relative to what may be called the businessaspect rather than the hygienic aspect of these ordinancesare minutely given and need not be detailed here -,but the step taken by the Di Rudini administrationis in all respects a meritorious one and forms, let us hope,the prelude to others equally calculated to raise the standardof health in the all too severely visited agricultural andpastoral regions of Italy. As I write the most gratifyingreport is handed to me on the Colonia Agricola di Ostia-a

,atin shore so haunted by the palustralmiasm that ten years ago it was habitable only in winter,being for nine months out of the twelve a scene ofdesolation and death. A company from Ravenna to whichthe cultivation of this "regione morta" was concededhas been able to overcome by drainage and agriculturethe pestiferous influences of the " stagno di Ostia,"and at the cost of some 200,000 fr. has established a sanitaryand agricultural " plant " which will not only maintain butextend the anti-malarial conquests already achieved. Onlyeighteen miles from Rome, that region, once an opprobriumto the civilisation and enterprise of the capital of UnitedItaly, is now on the way to become a standing honour toboth, and the institution of a local pharmacy and theprovision of a medical staff are now only required to put it ona level with the best of those reclamations which year byyear are lessening the area of "Italia irredenta."March 28th.

_________________

VIENNA.

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

Gratuitous Hospital Treatment.As I have already stated,l the Vienna Medical Chamber

has energetically protested against the abuse of hospitals bywell-to-do patients, and has even proposed that those whoapply for gratuitous treatment should be required to produceevidence that they are really necessitous. The managers ofthe Polyclinic, however, are satisfied with things as they areand point out in a pamphlet that the number of well-to-dopeople gratuitously attended in their establishment hardlyexceeds 5 per cent. As the number of out-patients treatedthere amounts to about 50,000 in the course of a

year it follows that the Polyclinic has been resorted toby about 3000 patients who were in a position to payfor medical assistance. The public, in fact, believe that

they have a right to gratuitous medical attendance, andone of the consequences is that there are a great manymedical men whose income hardly amounts to 40 ayear. The number of practitioners in Vienna has, moreover,increased from 844 in 1870 to 1179 in 1880 and to 2000in 1895 ; this is in a population of 1,400,000, whereas inBerlin, with its 1,800,000 inhabitants, there are only 1900medical men. At a meeting of the Medical Society of theSouthern Vienna Districts Dr. Kiirth said that if this stateof matters continues the poor medical man will soon form a

counterpart to the poor country schoolmaster.

The Function of Hair.A highly interesting paper on the Function of Hair has

been read by Professor Exner at a meeting of the MedicalSociety. He said that writers have hitherto occupied them-selves mainly with speculations on the circumstances whichhave led to man becoming denuded of his hairy covering.The hairs, however, are not only degenerated organs, buthave also to fulfil some functions. There is a group, such asthe eyelashes and eyebrows, for instance, which are sensorialorgans, possessing tactile functions, and, moreover, serve as aprotection to the eyes. In places where two integumentarysurfaces are in contact, such as in the axillary region and inthe fold between the scrotum or the labia majora and theleg, they act as rollers and facilitate the gliding of the

integumentary surfaces on each other. A third function ofthe hairs consists in the equalisation of surface temperature.

1 THE LANCET, Aug. 24th, 1895, p. 473.

96tMEDICAL TRIAL.

There is no doubt that the hair of the scalp protects thehead against external cold and also prevents the loss of heatthrough the very low thermal conductivity of the hair

cylinders and of the cushion of air intermingled with them.The School of Medicine.

According to a report which has just been published the-Vienna School of Medicine was attended by 3674 studentsduring the past winter half-year, comprising 2211 ordinaryand 1463 extraordinary students. The teaching staff con-sisted of twenty-nine ordinary professors, thirty-four extra-ordinary professors, and ninety-three _prii-at-doeents and,assistants.March 30th.

_______________

MEDICAL TRIAL.

.QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION, HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

(Before Mr. Justice HAWKINS.)KITSON v. PLAYFAIR AND WIFE.

THIS case, part of which we reported in our issue of March 28th, wasconcluded on Friday last. We continue the report :-Mr. Arthur Kitson, the plaintiff’s husband, examined by Mr. Tindal

Atkinson, said he left Sydney at the end of September or beginning ofOctober, 1892. His wife was always suffering and in the doctor’s hands.When he left Sydney he went to Port Dal win. His wife was then so ill.that Dr. Ogg advised a long sea voyage. He wrote to his brother Jamesof this, anft saying that he intended sending her to England. FromPort Darwin he went to Hongkong on his way to Honolulu. He had aetter from his wife on June 6th, 1894, which he had destroyed. Thisletter had reference to the accusations made by Dr. Playfair. Hereceived another letter at Sydney to the same effect. He left forEngland aq soon as he could, and arrived about Aug. 29th, 1894. Shecommunicated to him all that had occurred and placed in his hands allthe correspondence which had passed between her and Dr. Playfair.He then wrote to Sir James Kitson.Cross-examined by Sir Frank Lockwood: He allowed his family to

believe that he had surreptitiously visited England. He did so becausehe thought they wished to believe it. He had received letters from SirJames Kitson and Dr. Playfair withdrawing the accusations " after afashion." This closed the case for the plaintiffs and Sir F. Lockwood addressed

the jury on behalf of the defendants. His first duty was to submit tohis lordship that the occasions on which the libel and slander were pub-lished were privileged. Having regard to the relations existing betweenthe parties he contended that the communication by Dr. Playfair tohis wife was justifiable and the communication was privileged unless itcould be shown that he was actuated by an indirect motive or by maliceper se. With regard to the communication between Mrs. Playfair andSir James Kitson, the communication was made by a sister to herbrother in regard to the conduct of their sister-in-law, and they had ajoint interest in the communication being made. Here, again, unless itcould be shown that Mrs. Playfair was actuated by some malice or in--direct motive the occasion was privileged.

Mr. Justice Hawkins: The question of actual relationship does notseem to me to cover the ground. Would there be privilege if the corn-munication were made to an aunt ?

Sir F. Lockwood : The point here is that these people were deeplyinterested in the conduct of their brother’s wife. with whom they wereassociating on terms of intimacy.

Sir F. Lockwood, continuing, said he knew the great difficulties whichlay in his way in putting forward Dr. Playfair’s view of the case. Mr.Walton had drawn a pathetic picture of the sufferings of Mrs. Kitson,which he had been able to supplement to some extent by the testimonyhe had called. He was not going to ask the jury to approach the casein a hard-hearted way, but to judge temperately and fairly of the con-duct of Dr. Playfair. Mr. Walton had charged Dr. Playfair with beinga cruel and hard inquisitor, and made it impossible that his speechshould go before the world uncontradicted. This man was the first tothrow open his door to her. Shortly after she arrived in EnglandDr. Playfair examined her. She had complained to Mrs. Playfair ot thestate of her health and that lady suggested that Mrs. Arthur Kitsonshould consult her husband. Dr. Playfair examined her generally as toher physical condition and stated that there was nothing organicallywrong. With reference to what occurred later he would not ask thejury to say that this lady had had a miscarriage or to say that she hadnot been chaste. All he asked them to say was that Dr. Williams wasjustified in the conclusion he had come to and that lie bond-fldebelieved to be true that which he communicated to Mrs. Playfair.

Dr. William Smoult Playfair, examined by Mr. Charles Matthews,- said he was Doctor of Medicine, Fellow of the Royal College of Phy-sicians of London, Professor of Obstetric Medicine and teacher ofdiseases of women and children at King’s College Hospital. Hisfeelings towards the plaintiff were those of complete friendship.After her arrival in England she consulted him with regard toher health, and he made an examination as to the general stateof her health. On Jan. 16th, 1894, he was called in by Dr. Williams.Before seeing her he met Dr. Williams and talked over the case,and the latter described it to him. They afterwards saw the ladyt )gether. She seemed generally ill, and complained of some haemor-rhage which had existed for some time. He thought the troublewas a somewhat profuse period. On Feb. 23rd he saw Dr. Williamsin consultation. In the course of the examination he found the- neck of the womb dilated to the size of a five shilling piece. Wit’ inHie neck of the womb and above it he found a soft fungated mass,which he at first took to be a intra-uterine cancerous growth, but it wasimpossible to make a sufficiently complete diagnosis. Ile sent Dr.Williams for some chloroform, and when he returned they put theplaintiff under its influence. He then found that, the mass was notgrowing from the interior of the womb and that it was easily scooped

out and removed. He then found the mass to be a portion of frehplacental tissue of a spongy consistence and containing fresh blood in itsinterstices. After the operation he formed the opinion that Mrs. Kitsonhad had a recent miscarriage. There were not two administrations ofchloroform. It was one continuous administration, with a stoppagewhile he showed Dr. Williams the substance which had been removed.He did not make use of the words, ’’ I do not know what else it can be.I know very little about her, she may have been playing hanky-panky." Dr. Williams did not say, " I do not think it can

be anything like that. She has submitted to every examinationand been perfectly candid." She did not struggle up and say:" Oh, Dr. Playfair, for God’s sake let me go now if you think there isanything wrong." It would have been impossible. He did not pat herand say: ’’There, there, my dear, it is all right ; we think it is a can-cerous growth." He did not say, "Give her some more." The sub-stance he removed was certainly not, in his opinion, a blighted ovum.It was a piece of fresh placental tissue. A blighted ovum was theentire product of conception which had perished in the womb andundergone certain degenerative changes and which was eventuallythrown off. It varied in size from that of a duck’s egg to that of asmall melon. He would not expect it to lie loose in the uterinecavity.Cross-examined by Mr. Lawson Walton, he said that it was on the

assumption that Mr. Arthur Kitson had been in Australia that heformed an opinion adverse to the plaintiff’s honour. He formed itsolelv on his medical examination.Mr. Lawson Walton : Do you retain that opinion still?Dr. Playfair appealed to his lordship as to whether he was obliged to

answer that question and eventually replied: I do.Mr. Lawson Walton : Then why had you not the courage and manli-

ness to put that on record in your pleadrngs?Witness : I placed the case in the hands of eminent counsel and I

was satisfied to act on their advice.Mr. Lawson Walton : You thought it more politic?Witness : I thought it more judicious.Mr. Lawson Walton: Then, sir, why did you not insist on your

counsel raising that issue in order that this lady might have theopnortunity of refuting it ?Witness: Because I do not think it judicious to insist on raising

issues not advised by counsel.Mr. Lawson Walton : Do you still tell the jury that. notwithstanding

the lady’s oath and her husband’s and the opinion of Dr. Spencer, youpersist in your opinion ?Witness: I do. Continuing, witness said in coming to this con-

clusion he rejected all but medical considerations. lie rejected allmoral considerations, and the fact that plaintiff called in to attend hera member of her own family. It did not strike him as extraordinarythat she asked him to wait until her husband came back. Dr. Spencer’sevidence counted for nothing in his mind.Mr. Lawson Walton : How much evidence of other doctors would

serve to change your opinion?Witness: No amount; for none saw it under the same conditions as

myself. He never believed that Mr. Arthur Kitson had been III

England.Re-examined by Sir Frank Lockwood: He did not believe the state-

ment ; he accepted it that Mr. Arthur Kitson had been in England.The substance referred to in Charpenti.er bore no relation to the sub-stance he removed from plaintiff. He had no desire to make imputa-tions of unchastity against Mrs. Kitson.

Dr. Aluzio Williams was then examined by Mr. Matthews, and de-tailed his attendance on Mrs. Kitson and the calling in of Dr. Playfair.On Feb. 23rd Dr. Play fair sent him to get some chloroform, and headministered it while Dr. Playfair made tneexamination and performedthe operation. Dr. Playfair removed a piece of fresh placental tissueand its condition indicated to him (Dr. Williams) a three months’ preg-nancy. The tissue was spongy and contained fresh blood. Dr. Playfairsaid ’’ This is terrible. It is a piece of placenta. I did not knowthe lady before she married Arthur Kitson." Witness did not recollectDr. Playfair having said anything more. Shortly after Dr. Playfairleft. Mrs. Kitson was not conscious when he left the room. He did notremember Dr. Playfair using the words, " I know very little about her.She may have been playing hanky-panky." He (witness) did not say" I do not think it can be anything like that," neither did he say shehad submitted to every examination and been perfectly candid.The lady did not struggle up and say the words she alleged she uttered.He (witness) patted her and said, " It is all right." She said. " Whatis it you accuse me of?" I said, "We have not accused you of any-thing ; we have not quite finished, go on breathing." Nothing wassaid about the canceious growth. Witness was then cross-examinedby Mr. Lawson Walton as to his action in refusing to give any informa-tion to plaintiff’s solicitors except through defendant’s solicitors.Dr. Hugh Playfair, curator of King s College Museum, was nextexamined. He said the substance submitted to him by Dr. Playfairwas undoubtedly placenta, which had only very recently ceased dis-charging its functions. Microscopical examination confirmed thisopinion. Cross-examined by Mr Lawson Walton witness said he heardDr. Spencer refer to a period of eighteen months, but that was quiteimpossible. At the outside the piece could not have been more thanten months old.Re-examined by Sir Frank Lockwood : A placenta of eighteen months

would be perfectly different in appearance. It would be tough, hai d,and fibrous, and partially discoloured. Moreover, the microscopicalappearances would be totally different. There would be signs ofdegeneration and atrophy of the choriomie villi and an enormous over-growth of fibrous tissue. None of these conditions were in the sub-stance submitted to him.Mr. Bland Sutton, professor of pathology at Iiing’s College, gave

evidence as to having received specimens for examination which wereundoubtedly placental tissue. It was not possible that this could havebeen formed in December, 1892, and removed in March, 1891.

Sir John Williams, examined by Sir F. Lockwood, gave evidencesubstantiating in the main the evidence of the previous medicalwitnesses. With regard to the matter uf professional confidence,witness said there was no hard-and-fast line in the maintenance ofprofessional confidence.

Sir Frank Loekwood: What are the considerations which do affectmedical men in regard to professional confidence ? Witness: As a general rule medical men should hold inviolate pro-

fessional coniidtime.