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?]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

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.

    236/284 (page 232)
    Februaay 13,1904 2621. Inasmuch as this is based on IJr. Fletcher's report ?— We do not know that. Dr. A. Newsholme. Mr. JiisticG FARWELL : I do not know that. Mr. UPJOHN : It says so. Mr. Justice FAIiWELL : I do not know it. That is not the A proper evidence of it. The proper evidence is to see the report, but the Local Government Board say that it is not in the public interest that I should see it. I cannot take secondary evidence of a report that ought to be produced, and is not produced because the Local Government Board will not allow it. I think it is very hard on the B Court in an action by the Attorney-General at the relation of other parties. I observed that an answer has been given to a question put in the House, but it is not for me to overrule it, and I must submit. 2622. Mr. UPJOHN : You say that the preponderating opinion C amongst practitioners is that there is absolutely no danger ? That is so. 2623. As a matter of fact I think that in every case that has been investigated—I will take it in the last 20 years—I think I might say 30 years, with perhaps two exceptions, when the subject ]) did not seem to have cropped up, it has been reported by the inspector who was sent to make the investigation, that inspection did not occur to a much greater extent within the area round the hospital than within the zone beyond that area ?—But mv complaint is ■ £ 2624. Just one moment. There is a remarkable series of cises to that effect is not there ?—The cases which have been investigated were cases in which there was reason to expect that that result would be obtained. My complaint is, that all the hospitals have not been investigated, and that due weight has therefore not been given F to the vast preponderance of hospitals in which nothing of the sort has occurred. 2625. I suppose those were cases in which there was no out- break at all ?—No, there were outbreaks, but without spreading around the hospital of which we have a tittle of evidence—we have G no tittle of evidence of spreading around the hospital. 2626. Are you speaking of any case within your knowledge ?—I am speaking of the evidence which I have collected year by year from annual reports by medical officers of health who have had to treat small-pox and of the complete absence of any information with H regard to the spreading aronnd those hospitals. . .