1854 BMJ (Clinical Research Edition)  
_d out into tho area Thi sp was not tken by R A any "evilaatst"; and it cold not be proved. that the or mel-traent had either aggrvated the disor h its fatal Isua Of what, then, was the amcuse, or for what could he be puni ed by law? ri spking, it was more a case for investigation and tby the Society for Preventing Cruelty to Ani-mu~s; for othing could be proved against RB, so far as we awar, except tht he behaved in a most uakind, unhristian, and even brutal way, to two fellow-creatures, one
more » ... ow-creatures, one of whom was a relative. Doubtless the lawyers felt and formw the anomaly; for, in the course of the legal proceedings, difficulties and doubts arose, causing adjournment of the trial, which, I suspect, will now be pnermaantly abandoned without coming to any decision on the point at issue. The chief or only points the counsel for the prisoer appeared anxious to adduce in his defence *ere, that, at the time he turned the women out of doors, he did not know [and from the nature of the symptoms, he could not reasonably have been expected to know] that tke,y were labouring under Asiatic cholera, or other similarly dangerous affections, though they were suffering from incessant serous purging, vomiting, and cramps, attended by extreme prostration; that he did not use violence, or subject them to exposure to the weather, with any bad intent, further than to rid himself and his wife of company wlhich had become both troublesome and disagreeable; that. Be was not aware such violence or exposure would aggra-v&te their disorder, of whatever nature that might be-far les to such a degree as to speedily bring about a fatal isue; and that, on the whole, the unfortunate circum-
doi:10.1136/bmj.s3-2.82.676 fatcat:prp7u6qre5btlgfhnnpn6mq3ei