Daniel SULLIVAN 1 [832]

  General Notes:

Mount Alexander Mail (Vic. : 1854 - 1917) Thursday 16 October 1873 Page 3
INQUEST AT NEWSTEAD
The adjourned inquiry on the body of Daniel Sullivan was held at the Balmoral Hotel, before Geo. Smyth, Esq., Coroner. Dr Bone was examined, and stated that he was called in on Wednesday, the 8th inst., to prescribe for the child. Saw the child, and heard from the mother ,the symptoms; the child had fits for some days previously,- that was, that it was croupy ; examined the child, and the symptoms showed that whooping cough was approaching ;sounded the child, and at that time a large amount of mucus was in the bronchial tubes, and a wheezing was heard in the chest. Following out the usual practice, I ordered a cough mixture as prescribed ; the prescription now produced is the one given by me, the action we would require ; on tasting the bottle l could not say that it does not contain ipecaccuauha wine ; it is highly charged with something else to withdraw the taste of pure wine. I am quite certain that, not only on my own but any other medical men could the prescription produce the effect that has in this case resulted. By Mr Bath : Never, heard of any injurious effects caused by an emetic, nor do I know in my own practice of this dose being injurious as an emetic. There was no appearance of any brain disease. Miss Ross was further examined; Mr Bath put four ingredients into the bottle, and I heard, but could not swear that he did not put in the fifth. In answer to Mr Bath ; I positively swear that you mixed different ingredients, -first you put in a dark mixture but I will not swear that afterwards you put castor oil.

Dr Malcolm,sworn, examined, stated: On the 10th inst., I made a post-mortem examination. There were no external marks of injury. The upper part of the deceased's body was congested; indicative of poisoning by a narcotic, such as opium. I examined the body; the organs were perfectly healthy. I carefully examined the throat and windpipe, and found in them no trace of disease. The brain was healthy, but the back was congested slightly, and the effusion was there, but was port mortem. The cause of death was the effusion of blood to the brain. The cause I can't give you. The prescription prescribed could not be the cause. Mr Bath has made up his prescriptions for six years, and that in fact he is my instructor as to how make up prescriptions, and has never to my knowledge made any mistake. A chemist is bound to make out the prescriptions according to instructions without any deviations whatever. I could not swear as to the content of the bottle.
By the jury: Livid congestion is not necessary from narcotic poison. Dr Smith, sworn, stated: Was called to deceased on the 8th inst. Found the child in a decidedly poisoned state. There was stertorous breathing, and the eye fixed. Tried to give it tepid water, but the child could swallow nothing more. Knew from what I observed it was poisoning. Opium is in the bottle produced: Met Mr Bath at the Balmoral hotel, and asked him to come down to Newstead and we would examine every authority on the subject as to whether it was a poison. I was present at the post-mortem examination, and am fully persuaded that the child died from effusion on the brain ; the whole of the brain was congested, and the appearances were of narcotic poisoning.

To Mr Bath: don't remember your suggesting sulphate of zinc; in fact, the child could not have swallowed it. Mr. Bath, sworn, stated: I was never apprenticed to the chemist profession, but served with my brother, who is a surgeon, and kept a dispensary for four, years, and have been practically engaged dispensing and making, up medicine for the last twenty-five years, or there about. For about six years was dispensing for Dr Malcolm at Yandoit, Fryers, and Vaughan.
The prescription produced consists solely of stippoo wine; I made it up according to the best of my belief as directed and put it into the bottle, now produced ; I took the contents from one bottle only'97 it was marked I.P.N. Ipecac contains about 2 1/2 oz to 3 1/2 oz, the same colour as that produced. Miss Ross is entirely wrong if she states I took the contents of that bottle produced from more than one; she must have referred to the cough mixture . I told her that I thought it should be given in water. I have tasted the contents, and cannot swear that it is stippoo wine. I cannot account for it, but have no hesitation in saying, that the medical testimony-is correct as to opium being used. I have been for five weeks with a burnt arm, and others have had access to my place. Mr Marsh dispensed for me during that time and I do not for one moment suppose he did anything to injure me. I was naturally confused, and supposed that I was wrong that I sent the anti-monial wine to counteract the effect of a wrong dose had been administered ; but after looking, found I was correct as to my instructions, The coroner summed up most undoubtedly in favour of committing Mr Bath, who made up the preparation, which was proved to contain poison, and, was not ipecaccuanha wine; as prescribed by, Dr Bone. The jury, after about an hour's consultation, found Mr Bath guilty of manslaughter with a very strong recommendation to mercy. Mr Bath Was admitted to bail in two sureties of fifty pounds each, and himself in one hundred pounds.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/197099466#pstart21596300


The Argus Melbourne 17 Oct 1873 page 5

The adjourned inquiry concerning the death of the child Daniel Sullivan at Newstead, on the 8th inst., from poisoning, was held on Wednesday. According to the evidence, as reported in the Mount Alexander Mail, the deceased had been suffering from whooping cough, for which Dr. Bone prescribed some ipecacuanha wine. The prescription was made up by a Mr. Bath, and a dose administered to the deceased, who shortly afterwards exhibited symptoms of narcotic poisoning. Dr. Smith was called in, but the child was then past medical aid. The medical evidence proved that the mixture consisted to a large extent of opium, and that the child's death had been caused by some narcotic poison. The statement of Mr. Bath was that in making up the prescription he had used the contents of only one bottle, which was supposed to contain ipecacuanha wine. He admitted, however, that what had been given to the child was opium, and not ipecacuanha. He informed the coroner and jury that he had never been apprenticed to the chemist profession, but served with his brother, who was a surgeon, and kept a dispensary for four years, and had been practically engaged dispensing and making up medicine for the last 25 years. For about six years he had been dispensing for Dr. Malcolm, at Yandoit, Fryers, and Vaughan. The jury, after about an hour's consultation, found Mr. Bath "Guilty of manslaughter, with a very strong recommendation to mercy." Mr. Bath was committed for trial, but admitted to bail in two sureties of £50 each, and himself in £100.

Mount Alexander Mail (Vic. : 1854 - 1917) Monday 23 February 1874 Page 3
MANSLAUGHTER
James. Bath surrendered to his bail on the charge of killing and slaying one Dan. Sullivan on 8th October. Mr Leech, instructed by-Mr Paynter, appeared for the defence. The Crown Prosecutor stated the case, and said that it was not urged that the prisoner had any animosity towards the infant, ' but through his criminal negligence its death was caused. He then called Mrs Hughina Sullivan, the wife of Mr Sullivan, farmer of Sandon : Had a child named Daniel Sullivan, who on the 3rd of October was taken ill. Prior to that date had never been ill. On that occasion gave him ten drops of essence of linseed in warm water three times.
A day or two afterwards (on the 8th) the infant complained of being choked, and at once took him to Dr Bone at Newstead. the doctor examined the child, and gave a prescription (produced) which she, gave to her sister, Annie Ross. Witness stayed at her mother's place that night Miss Ross went to Newstead, and returning brought back two bottles, but only some of the small bottle was used, according to the directions thereon. The child got sick afterwards, and some linseed poultices were placed on the child's breast. After the third dose the child began to get drowsy, but the doses were continued for an hour, at which time symptoms of death set in. After the medicine was discontinued witness sent her sister to Mr Bath's on horseback; she was accompanied by Mr Silvester. They brought back a small bottle containing a light-coloured fluid; gave him a dose, but on the third attempt the child could not swallow it-the medicine came up through his nose. Sent for Dr Smith. Prisoner came to the house about ten o'clock, and said the first medicine should have been given in warm water. In reply to Mr Sullivan, prisoner said that if anything occurred Dr Bone was to blame. At this time Dr Smith arrived, and said that the child was most decidedly poisoned.
Mr Bath said that he had given it "ipecac".

About 12 o'clock the child got convulsive, and only lived till a quarter-past 8 next morning. During the night gave the child warm baths. To Mr -Leech:- Gave the bottle produced to Constable Dawson at the inquest; it had been kept in a drawer from the time the child died, and was in the same state as when used. Annie Ross, sister to the last witness, residing at the Balmoral hotel, Newstead, gave corroborative evidence. She had taken the prescription to prisoner, and received from him two bottles; and noticed while he was making up the small bottle that he put three different liquids in it besides water. Prisoner gave no verbal instructions how to administer the medicine. The larger bottle was not used at all. Heard all that passed between Dr Smith and the prisoner with respect to the state of the child. To Mr Leech; Observed what Mr Bath put in the bottles; had a fashion of always noticing such things in chemist's shops. The materials for the small bottle were taken out of two bottles on the counter; then heard something fall into the bottle, then poured in some water, filling up with something out of bottle on the shelf; the liquid was thick and dark; could not say if the contents of the bottle became milky. Dr Bone then deposed to the prescription be had written out for Mrs Sullivan's child at the Balmoral hotel, near Newstead. The child was suffering from mucous in the bronchial tubes,-otherwise mucous croup and cough - it was dangerous if not attended to. The child was brought to him early enough to treat it for that disease. Prescribed an emetic - ipecac wine, to be taken every ten minutes - R Conium1 1/2 drachm, compound spirits of ether one drachm, paregoric 4 drachms, simple syrup 6cdrachms, water to 6 ounces. Take one tea spoonsful every two or three hours. Knew Mr Bath, who was a chemist and druggist in the habit of making up medicines for him. Had given a child a much larger dose without injurious effects. Ipecac wine would be kept in a single bottle; the directions on the bottle were correct according to his instructions. Could not undertake to say what the bottle produced contained. Did not see the child a second time, and did not think the medicine he prescribed would have produced the effects as described by last witness - it would not make a child drowsy.
To Mr Leech; The symptoms might be produced by effusion on the brain; the result of natural causes. In the cough mixture there were four or five ingredients. Prisoner had always been a careful man, and was fully competent to administer medicine. Had been attending him for very severe burns on the arm, which were not quite healed up; he had been laid up for some considerable time, as there was considerable slough from the wound. To the Crown Prosecutor: Had attended prisoner until very lately. The symptoms of effusion on the brain might resemble narcotic poisoning very closely. To a juryman: A chemist is not supposed to alter anything in a prescription, or substitute one thing for another without permission.
Dr Malcolm: Had attended the inquest on the 10th October, and made the post mortem examination. There were no external marks of violence, but lividity of the skin, indicative of poisoning by opium; did not see the child when it was alive; the symptoms were described were indicative of poisoning by opium, and could not be attributed to ipec wine, an overdose would produce a more immediate affect. The lungs and heart were health; the brain was congested. Attributed death to the congestion of the brain, but could not say if it arose from natural causes, as such symptoms would be produced by an overdose of opium. He discovered no disease at all; and the prescription would not have done any harm. From the time that elapsed from the death till the contents of the stomach were analysed, the opium would be absorbed, and would not enable any person to say that the congestion was the result of natural causes. To Mr Leech: Agreed with Dr Bone; congestions of the brain might result from convulsions. Had been acquainted with Mr Bath for 19 years; had him under his employ, and would now take him into his employ sooner than any man in the colony of Victoria; never saw him under the influence of drink while on duty. Had every confidence in him. Hugh Smith, a legally qualified medical practitioner,residing at Newstead, gave corroborative evidence. When he saw the child, about midnight, it was breathing stertorous, and he sight fixed: prescribed for the deceased. The contents of the bottle (having tasted it) were not ipec wine. At once told the people that the child was poisoned. Asked the prisoner how he had made ipec. wine and he replied that when he made ipec. wine from colonial wine, he used spirits to keep it from getting sour. Did not examine the bottle from which the medicine was taken at prisoner's shop ; know now that the bottle produced contained tincture of opium, which would produce symptoms such as those described. A child two years six months old might be teething. To Mr Leech: In his opinion death was the result of congestion of the brain, caused by opium, but he agreed with the evidence given by Drs Bone and Malcolm. The child was convulsed.
Had every confidence in prisoner, who frequently made up his prescriptions.

Mrs Sullivan and Annie Ross were called to prove that the child was not exposed to the rays of the sun in anyway, and that the prisoner was perfectly sober. Constable Ross proved having received the bottles produced, and delivered them to Mr Johnson, the Government analytical chemist. Wm. Johnston, Esq.,- Government analytical chemist, deposed to the contents of the bottles given him by the last witness, and now produced. In on he had found traces of opium in very small quantities; the prescription would account for it ; had no reason to doubt the bottle contained the ingredients prescribed ; the second bottle was subjected to a great variety, of tests ; detected morphia and micomic acid first was the active principle of opium; the proportion was 1-3 of the strength of tincture of opium or weak spirit; the third contains antimonial wine, which should operate as an emetic. A teaspoonful of the second bottle would be a fatal dose for a child, as young children were peculiarly, susceptible, to the effects of opium. The effect of ten doses would be to make the child throw- it-all off the stomach or absorb it. The effects of poison are always rapid. To His Honour: There was no ipec. wine in the second bottle; in a druggist shop the bottles are labelled ipec. and opii. and might be easily mistaken. To Mr Leech : Tested the contents of the bottle with chloride of iron, which left a peculiar colour, which no other substance did. Micomic acid was a component part of morphia. Emeting was the active principle of ipec. win. Had made eight several tests, all of which proved the presence of opium. This was the case for the Crown, and the Crown Prosecutor then addressed the jury on the evidence produced, expressing his extreme regret at seeing a man possessing such a character as that just given him by the witnesses in ; such a position brought on by his carelessness in the administering of medication. He did not think such gross misconduct should be passed over without due punishment, and argued that the evidence all pointed to the guilt of the prisoner, and it would be an insult to their common sense to put it to them that death was caused either by an accident over which he had no control, or from natural causes. He regretted that no witnesses had been called for the defence, in order to show that an error had been committed accidentally.
Mr Leech then addressed the jury for the defence. He regretted that the Crown Prosecutor had displayed such temper in the conduct of the case against the prisoner; he had always understood that the Crown sought to convict a prisoner by mere justice, and not intemperate conduct'97 the arguments he considered very futile and incongruous. For his part, he was not at the inquest, and could not explain why the prisoner had omitted to do certain acts pointed out by the Crown. He would first ask the jury if there was a prima facie case against the prisoner, seeing that the evidence was so contradictory, in fact, so much so, that the Crown had expressed, itself not willing to urge, it, Annie Ross had sworn that the first bottle was filled by four different ingredients, whereas the analytical chemist had- shown there was only tincture of opium with weak spirit. Every one of the symptoms of the deceased were quite consistent with natural causes, - congestion of the brain, caused by sun-stroke or convulsions. All the medical gentlemen, had agreed on that one point. He then proceeded to read authorities to show that the rule with regard to the degree of misconduct in dispensing medicines is whether the accused had acted without due caution, and in the whole bearing of the case there was not a scantilla of evidence to prove the allegation.
On the contrary, the evidence showed that he had always maintained a character for calution and carefulness. According to the prisoner, he could not account for the apparent mistake, but he believed even now that he had taken the contents of the bottle from one labelled "ipec,"and not from the labelled "opii." With regard to the accident, he put it to the jury that while the prisoner was ill from that cause, the bottles had been misplaced by the assistant, of which prisoner was not aware, and merely put up his hand to the accustomed place for it. Then again, there was the singular circumstance of the stomach not being sent down for analysis. In conclusion he summed up the various points of the case in favour of the prisoner, contending that there was no evidence of gross negligence or carlessness.
His Honour summed up, and observed that the prisoner was charged with mis-compounding a prescription prepared by a competent medical gentleman, and then proceeded to point out that the case was simple, as laid down in law-books. If the medicine was administered by a person unqualified, and a mistake occurred, then he would be guilty of manslaughter; but if a properly qualified chemist by some accident gave the wrong medicine, not through gross carelessness, then they could not charge him with that misadventure, which all were liable to. He put the matter to the jury in the form of two questions - whether the ingredients of the bottle by mistake, or gross negligence, did not contain the ingredients prescribed, or whether it as caused by carelessness. He thought before he jury could convict the prisoner they must be satisfied that it was given by a culpable mistake. He quoted from Lord Lyndhurst, and left it to them to say whether the death of the child Sullivan, was caused by the gross negligence of the prisoner. The jury retired.
http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/197108830