The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904).

Great Britain. High Court of Justice. Chancery Division.

Date:: [1904?]

Credit: The Attorney-General and others -v- The Mayor, aldermen & citizens of the city of Nottingham. Minutes of evidence (February 10 - February 15, 1904). Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service. The original may be consulted at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Library & Archives Service.

229/284 (page 225)

$2549. Did you make it your business to inquire when cases Februain i;t()4 occurred in the neiglibourhood of the hospital how they contracted the contagion ?—Yes. . , 2550. In the majority of cases did you come to any definite con- \ ckision as to the mode in which contagion had been contracted ?— Yes, in several instances it was traced entirely to cases which had been overlooked. In some other instances there had been undouljted maladiministration of the hospital causing ca&es in the neighbouring streets. I myself saw, for instance, the driver of an ambulance on j-j his way to the hospital with patients, going out to a public house. 2551. Now with the exception of those which you traced to things like maladministration an<l comnnmication in your experience at Clapham did you find that the hospital was a centr'e for the dissemination of the disease as it has been put ?—No ; on the side of (; the hospital which had no such contact there were practically no cases, or a very small number indeed. 2552. I think on the one side of the Clapham Hospital at that time there was a deep railway cutting and no bridge across it ?—Yes, and on the side away from the hospital, within the (]uarter of a mile J) radius, only one case occurred as compared with 47 on the same side as the hospital, although the social circumstances and the other con- ditions of the population were, so far as one could judge, identical. Cross-examined by Mr. Upjohn. 2553. With regard to this last point, it is a fact that the statistics of all the five Metropolitan Asylums hospitals in London were collected ?—That is so, I believe. 2554. There were five and no more?—Yes. 2555. And the statistics in respect of the five were collected ?— Yes, I believe so. Y 2556. And after Dr. Power's report, which we know was limited to the one—to the Fulham Hospital, the whole matter was investi- gated l)y the Royal Commission ?—That is so. 2557. And the Koyal Commission found that in each case the hospital operated in the area round it, did not it ?—That is the con- elusion they came to, I believe. 2558. They examined the most able persons of the day, did not they ?—They examined Dr. Power, and Dr. Power's overwhelming influence determined the result. 2559. But Dr. Power at that time was a young man ? —He was jj a man whom we all highly respected. 2560. You do not suggest that there was no other person of$