INFECTED PERSON EXPOSED IN THE STREETS. POLICE COURT PROCEEDINGS. A HEAVY PENALTY. At the Tenby Police Court on Monday morning a case which excited a good deal of local interest was heard before Messrs. Edward Laws (in the chair), Benjamin Harries and F. N. Railton, a well-known resident, Mrs Ethel Price Lewes, wife of Captain Price Lewes, of Shirley House, Picton Road, Tenby, being charged on three saparate summonses by Dr. Douglas Arthur Reid, Medical Officer of Health to the Tenby Corpo- ration, with exposing her child, Price Charles Murray Lewes, while suffering from an infectious disorder, to wit, scarlet fever, on September 18th, 19th and 20th, 1909. Mr G. Meyrick Price, solicitor, Tenby, appeared for the defendant, on whose behalf he pleaded not guilty, and before the hearing of evidence made an application that all witnesses should be ordered out of court, which was granted by the Bench. Dr. Reid, prosecutor, opening the case, said :— This is a case of wilful disobedience of the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 126, by which the health of the community has been endangered. The charge against Mrs Price Lewes is that on certain days in September she took her son into the public streets before he was free from the infection of scarlet fever. In proof of this I shall call witnesses who will swear that they saw this lady and her little boy in various places on the days mentioned in the summonses, viz., on Sep- tember 18th, 19th, and 20th. The first intima- tion that reached me of what was going on was a letter from Mr Morley, the Borough Inspector of Nuisances, who wrote as follows:— September 20th, 1909. DEAR SIR,-I am informed that Mrs Price Lewes, Picton Road, has been seen out in the public street with her son, the one who had the scarlet fever, on two occasions, namely Saturday and yesterday (Sunday). Do you know anything about the matter? Surely the time has not yet expired ?—Your obedient servant. Dr. Reid. (Signed) B. MORLEY. As Medical Officer of Health it was my duty to investigate the truth of this report, and with that view I saw Mr Morley and ascertained from him the names of his informants. As they were quite reliable witnesses I consulted the Town Clerk as to the advisability of taking proceedings in the matter, and before giving a definite reply he re- ferred it to the sanitary committee which met that afternoon. Meanwhile, on the 20th, Mr Morley met Mrs Price Lewes and the boy in, or near, South Cliff Street, and told her she had no right to take him out. He will show exactly the place where he met Mrs Price Lewes to prove that she and the boy were in the public street. He will tell you that Mrs Price Lewes informed him that the boy was out of the doctor's hands ten days previous to September 20th, which brings it back to the 10th September, on which day Dr. Drake distinctly told her that the boy was on no account to leave the house. Mr Morley can also prove that no official disinfection of the premises has been carried out, and would not be until the expiration of the infectious period-six weeks. The result of the committee meeting was that I was given a free hand, either to take immediate proceedings or write a warning letter. I decided on the latter course and wrote as follows :— 2, Kent Houses, Tenby, September 20th, 1909. To Mrs Price Lewes. MADAM,-It has been reported to me that on the 18th and 19th insts. and to-day, you have taken your son, Thomas Price Lewes, who has been notified to me as sufferiug from scarlet fever, into the public streets before the period of infection has expired. You have thereby rendered yourself liable to a heavy penalty. With the consent of the Sanitary Authority, how- ever, before taking proceedings against you. I will ask you to give me an undertaking in writing, not later than 9 o'clock to-morrow morning, that you will not permit your son, Thomas Price Lewes, to leave the house until Tuesday, the 28th of Septem- ber, on which day I shall expect to receive a certifi- cate from your medical attendant that the patient is free from infection. Your obedient servant, DOUGLAS A. RIiID, M.D., Medical Officer of Health, Borough of Tenby. To this letter, the next morning I received the following reply:— Shirley House, Tenby, Tuesday. SIR,-I received your communication too late to answer last night. I beg to state that my son, Price Charles Murray Lewes, said to be suffering from scarlet fever, has not been taken in the public streets but directly to the South Sands at the time no one was about-1.30 to 2.30., he then boing perfectly well. I should like to know why such extreme pre- cautions have been taken in my son's case, as I undesrtand patients from the fever hospital are dismissed at the month and allowed to mix freely with others.- Yours faithfully, _(Signed) E. PRICE LEWES. I referred the letter to the clerk to the Sanitary Authority. He said there was nothing to do but to issue the summonses, and I agreed with him and they were served on Mrs Price Lewes the same day. We considered that not only was there no undertaking to keep the boy in the house until the expiration of the six weeks, but the letter was written in a spirit of defiance of the authority, at the same time admitting that she had taken the boy on the South Sands, which is certainly a public place, and could not be reached without passing through the public streets. Beyond all this Mrs Price Lewes im- putes unfairness in the case of her son as com- pared with our action in other cases, notably those who were removed to the isolation hospital. I may say at once that not a single patient has been discharged from the hospital until the full period of six weeks had expired, and one was detained for four days longer at the suggestion of the medical attendant. I cannot allow it to go forth that there was any slackness on the part of myself or the Inspector of Nuisances in this matter. We did everything in our power to pre- vent the spread of the disease at a most critical period of the year, just before the summer season commenced, apd were successful in limiting the number of cases to six. We found the isolation hospital invaluable as a means of speedy and perfect isolation, and although it has involved the town in a heavy expense it has prevented a very serious loss to the lodging-house keepers, the hotels, and the tradesmen, to some of whom the epidemic would have spelt ruin. We did not anticipate that all our precautions would be, or would run the risk of being, upset by anyone in the position of the defendant. And this brings me back to the history of the case itself. It is briefly this :—On August 18th Dr. Drake told me that he had been called to a suspicious case that would probably turn out to be scarlet fever, but, before notifying, he would like to wait until the symptoms were more developed. He reported to me from day to day until Saturday, the 21st, when he was quite satisfied that it was scarlet fever, and notified accordingly, upon which I entered it in my register of certificates. I sug- gested the isolation hospital, but he said that Mrs Price Lewes was away and that the boy could bo perfectly isolated in the house and* placed in charge of a nurse. To this I agreed, Dr. Drake undertaking to see that every precau- tion was taken to prevent the disease from being communicated to anyone else. On hearing that Mrs Price Lewes had returned I sent her, by post, the usual notice advising her what to do, where to obtain disinfectants free, which were supplied by the Inspector of Nuisances, and cautioning her not to allow the patient to leave the house until such time as a proper medical certificate was given to me that there was no fear of infection from the patient mixing with other persons. Dr. Drake continued to attend the boy until Septem- ber 10th, when, I understand, the question arose as to whether Mrs Price Lewes might take her son on to the South Sands. Dr Drake told her dis- tinctly that she must not allow him to leave the premises until the six weeks had expired, but he might go into the garden (which was at the back of the house). I shall call Dr. Drake to give evidence on this point. After hearing his evi- dence, and the evidence of other witnesses who saw the boy out on the days mentioned in the summonses, I hope your Worships will decide that I have proved my case, and, in that event, while not pressing for a heavy fine (although these pro- ceedings were forced upon us by the refusal of Mrs Price Lewes to give an undertaking to keep the boy in the house for the rest of the infection period), I will ask you, in the interests of the health of the public, to mark your sense of the injury that might have been caused to the town by the conduct of the defendant in such a manner as to deter others from acting likewise. One thing more I should like to add. It is this On Saturday last, about mid-day, Mrs Price Lewes' solicitor, Mr Meyrick Price, called on me with a view to a compromise or settlement of this case, asking upon what terms it could be with- 0 drawn or settled, suggesting an apology and a promise to keep the boy in the house until the 28th. I 0ave him the following :— 28th. I 0ave him the following :— 1. The proceedings cannot be withdrawn. 2. The case must go into court. 3. If you will write to me on behalf of your client that she intends to pload guilty, expresses regret and undertakes to be more careful in future, I will not press the charge. Mr Meyrick Price called on me about an hour after and said his client declined the terms. Mr Meyrick Price, at the conclusion of the Medical Officer's opening statement, said he wanted to ask him a question, but it was pointed out that Dr. Reid had not yet given evidence, nor been sworn. Mr Price said his point was that he did not want Dr. Reid to hear Dr. Drake's evi- dence before he gave his, if he intended to be sworn. Dr. Reid said he might give evidence. It was stated that it was the usual thing for the complainant to give evidence first, and Mr Price asked that Dr. Reid might be examined first. After further argument, Bertie Morley, the Borough Surveyor and In- spector of Nuisances, was called and examined by Dr. Reid, who produced a letter which the witness had written him on September 20th with regard to the case. From a conversation he had had with a witness who would be called he knew that Mrs Price Lewes had been in the street with her son. Cross-examined by Mr Meyrick Price-He saw the patient in Picton Road, at the juncture of South Cliff Street and Picton Road. He had never heard of an infectious disease in that town being isolated for a month. Six weeks was the shortest period of isolation, that was the recog- nised period. He bad never heard of any case being discharged after five weeks. He considered Picton Road a public place. When he met Mrs Price Lewes he asked her if the child in her com- pany was the one who had been suffering from scarlet fever, and she said yes." He had not in spected the premises because he had no instructions to do so. He had not reported to Dr. Reid that the premises had not been disinfected. Under certain circumstances it was 'his duty to report on pre- mises with infectious disease. It depended on circumstances. He considered that the health of the community would be endangered by a patient suffering from an infectious disease who had been kept in the house for five weeks. Mr Price-Would you consider it dangerous to the public? Witness—Yes, under certain circumstances. Is a patient dangerous to the public after or during convalescence ?—That is a question for the medical men. The next witness called for the prosecution was John Thomas, residing at No. 33, Victoria Street, Tenby, who having been sworn stated that he remembered Saturday, September 18th. He knew Mrs Price Lewes by sight and saw her on that day, and also on September 19th. On September 18th he saw her in Victoria Street about two o'clock in the afternoon. Master Price Lewes was with her, also Mr and Mrs Brown, of Victoria Street. They were having a conversation with Mrs Price Lewes. On the following day (September 19tb) at about a quarter-past four he saw the defendant's son in Victoria Street, with a woman, who he thought was the servant. Mr Meyrick Price (cross-examining)—When you saw the patient on September 18th why didn't you report it ? Witness—I never reported anyone at all. I spoke casually to the Borough Surveyor on Sep- tember 19th. Did the Borough Surveyor instruct you to watch Mrs Price Lewes ?-No. Did the Medical Officer instruct you ?—No. Will you swear that ?—Yes. Did you hear before that Mrs Price Lewes's son was suffering from scarlet fever ?-I had heard so. In the course of further cross-examination the witness said he asked Mr Morley how the children were getting on in the isolation hospital, and he replied that they were getting all right. He (wit- ness) then said that Master Price Lewes was well again and out. Mr Meyrick Price-Do you live in a house with small children ?-No. Do you feel feverish yet? (Laughter).—No. Have you had scarlet fever before ?—Not that I know. John Samuel Brown, residing at No. 36, Vic- toria Street, Tenby, said he remembered Sep- tember 18th. He knew Mrs Price Lewes, and was with her on that date in Victoria Street, the time being from two to half-past. Her boy was with her. He spoke to her for about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour; they were talking all the time. Witness's wife was with him when he spoke to Mrs Price Lewes. Mr Meyrick Price (cross-examining)—Have you any children, Mr Brown ?-Two. What age are they ?—Seventeen and eleven. Have they suffered from scarlet fever at any time ?-The elder one has not the younger. You knew the patient was a convalescent?— Yes, I had heard that before. You had not the slightest fear of any infection ? -Well, the boy was not with Mrs Price Lewis, although comparatively near her. He was a matter of fifteen to twenty yards away. What did Mrs Price Lewes say to you ?-It was chiefly general conversation. Did she say My boy is supposed to be suf- fering from scarlet fever ? "—I think that was probably mentioned. I cannot vouch for it at the moment. By the Justices' Clerk (Mr G. Lort Stokes)— He knew that the boy had had scarlet fever. Mr Meyrick Price asked the witness how long his daughter was isolated when she had scarlet fever. Witness-As far as I can recollect five or six weeks. It is now thirteen or fourteen years, so I cannot quite say. You could not swear that it was less than six weeks ?-No, I could not. Have you heard of patients being free from in- fection in less than six weeks ?-No. The Clerk-He is not a medical witness. Mr Railton- Y ou said the boy was some dis- tance away. Was he running about by himself or under anybody's control ? Witness-He was coming along with Mrs Price Lewes. Dr. Reid-Who told you the boy was convales- cent ? Witness-Well, Mrs Price Lewes, I think, in the course of conversation. Mr Laws—What do you mean by convalescent, that is the question. Witness-I think convalescent is growing better. Mr Laws-Did they tell you that he had been peeling ? Witness—We didn't go into details. At this stage, Dr. Reid said he would recall the witness Morley. Mr Meyrick Price objected to this being done on the ground that it was unnecessary. Mr Morley was recalled, however, and in reply to Dr. Reid, said he remembered Monday, Sep- tember 20th, and on that day, at about 2.40 p.m. he saw her at the top of Picton Road, her son being with her, but no one else. He spoke to her and asked if that was the child who had been suf- fering from scarlet fever, and she said yes." He then told her that she had no business to leave the house with the child, and her answer to this was that the boy was out of the doctor's hands, and been well disinfected. Witness said no more to her. He noticed that she went in the direction of Picton Terrace towards the Esplanade. Thomas Davies, a Corporation scavenger, saw him speaking to Mrs Price Lewes. He had a con- versation with Davies regarding some other work. When he was talking to Davies Mrs Price Lewes came back and said Is there anything more you want me to do ? to which he (witness) replied It is a matter which is entirely in the Medical Officer's hands." He kept the register of disin- fections, but Shirley House was not one of those houses which had been disinfected. He had bad no application to have it disinfected. Thomas Davies, St. Mary Street, Tenby, said he remembered Monday, September 20th. He knew Mrs Price Lewes by sight, and saw her by the Rink at the bottom of Picton Terrace. The time was between two and three o'clock in the after- noon. She had a little boy with her. He saw Mr Morley talking to her. He also said he saw Mrs Price Lewes about a week before that time going down Picton Road with the same child. Mr Lawa-Was the boy with her a week before ? -Yes. Mr Railton-A week before the 10th ?-I should think so. Dr. Reid—Where ?—Just by the Rink. Mr Railton-Was it the same boy?—Yes. Are you sure of that ?-Yes. Mr Laws Are you sure it was a week before ?— I think it was. He added that at the time he was sweeping the street, and it being very dusty he stopped for the lady to pass. Cross-examined by Mr Meyrick Price-He would not swear that it was more than three days before the 20th. He could not remember the day when he first saw Mrs Price Lewes. John Alexander Drake, medical practitioner, Llavallin House, High Street, Tenby, was then called, and, having been sworn, said he pro- fessionally attended Mrs Price Lewes's son first on August 18th last, the nature of his complaint being scarlet fever. The first time he saw the patient he was suspicious as to the nature of the complaint; the second day he was rather more suspicions, but on the third day his suspicions were almost a certainty. The symptoms then re- sembled those of scarlet fever, and were what he should expect to be the earliest symptoms of scarlet fever. He called on Dr. Reid the first day and told him he was afraid he had a suspicious case of scarlet fever, but he did not notify it until August 21st. On the third day he was certain that it was scarlet fever. The last day on which he attended the patient was September 10th. Dr. Reid—On that day did any question arise as to the boy going out? Mrs Price Lewes-It was suggested that he might go out. Witness-I said be might go out in the garden, but he must not go outside the house. Dr. Reid-Did that mean that he must not go off the premises?—Yes. Mr Laws-Had he begun to peel then ?—Yea, there had been slight peeling. Dr. Reid-Why didn't you visit him after the 10th ?-Witness replied that there would have been no need to have visited the boy for another week or ten days from that day (September 10th); but in the meantime he heard that the boy had been seen out, and as his (witness's) instructions had been disregarded he did not go to see him any more. Dr. Reid-What is the length of time during which contagion lasts in scarlet fever?—The mini- mum time is six weeks. Dr. Reid asked the witness for his authority for that statement. Witness—I have got here a code of rules that is brought out by the Medical Officers of the Schools Association, and they say here the length of time during which contagion lasts in scarlet fever, pro- vided disinfection is thoroughly enforced, is not less than six weeks from the date of the rash. Dr. Reid-Did you consider the boy in an in- fectious state on the 18th, 19th, and 20th of September?—Yes, I did. Mr Harries-September 10th was your last visit to him ?-Yes. Cross-examined by Mr Meyrick Price-When did you first see the patient ?—On August 18th. Was it not August 16th ?-No, I don't think so. Where did you take those notes from ?—Entries made of my visits. When did you certify it was a case of scarlet fever?—On Saturday, August 21st. Why did you not diagnose this case sooner ?- Because it was impossible to diagnose it sooner. Is not scarlet fever sudden ?-The onset is sudden. Could you not diagnose it?—I could not diagnose it before the appearance of the rash. On what day did you see the rash ?-On Friday. On what date ?-That was the 20th. When did you first see him ?-On 18th August. And you saw the rash on the 20th ?—Yes. Therefore, if you found no rash on the second day you ought to have come to the conclusion that it was not scarlet fever ?—Most decidedly not. Did you examine the boy ?—I did. You swear that ?—Yea. Are you aware that this boy suffers from sore throat and enlarged glands ?-Yes. Did he have a sore throat the first day ?-Yes. Did he have enlarged glands ?-Yes. Did you know where he contracted that cold; did you make enquiries ?—Yes, I did. I was in- formed the previous day that he was perfectly well. Did you know he had been bathing the previous day ?—I was told he had been. He was more likely to have a cold than scarlet fever ?-He may have. If you were doubtful on the second day as to whether he had scarlet fever, why didn't you call in the Medical Officer of Health to have a further opinion?—One is always doubtful. One has to wait three or four days. Did you see any rash the second day ?—No. Have you seen it the second day ?—I have seen it or I have not seen it. There is no fixed rule. Did you examine the temperature?—It was raised. What was it ?—I cannot remember. Was it normal ?-No. Was it 101 ?—I forget. Therefore, you did not diagnose the case care- fully ?—Most decidedly not. You were rather rough about it. What was the usual temperature ?-It varies from 100 to 104. If his temperature was above 101 would you not have noticed it ?—Yes. Would you not be able to remember it ?—I don't remember what his temperature was; I knew it was raised, that is all I can say. Did you remember what his temperature was on the second day ?—No, I don't; I know it was raised. Was there any desquamation on the last day ?— There were slight signs of it on the child. If there was on the last day, why didn't you go to see the patient subsequently ?—Because there was no necessity to go for another week or ten days. Did you find desquamation on the body or the feet ?-I found a little on the body and some on the feet. Did you tell Mrs Price Lewes that?—I can't remember. Did you examine the feet?- Yes. And if Mrs Price Lewes says you did not examine the feet she is telling an untruth ? Did you examine them on the last day ?—I cannot remember. What is to be done if people want fresh air ?— Send them out in the fresh air, I suppose; but not if there is infection on them. Is six weeks the usual period of isolation ?- The minimum period. Have you known it to be less ?—I have not. When did you count the period of isolation from your first visit, or the date of the certificate ?— That is a matter of opinion. What is the length ?-Six weeks from the date of the appearance of the rash. Six weeks is the minimum it might be longer, or it might not. Authorities differ on that point. What is your practice?—Six weeks from the rash, provided at that time no infectious symptoms are present. Mr Laws—What is the nominal period of peeling ? Witness—It is very indefinite. It may be over in six weeks, or it may last longer. Six weeks is the minimum period of infection. Mr Meyrick Price (continuing cross-examina- tion)-Have you ever allowed patients to go out yourself under six weeks ?-No. Will you swear that ?—Yes. Did you tell Miss Jones, the governess, that you didn't know what was the matter ?-I cannot re- member. My memory is bad as to particular days. Why didn't you take notes ?—I don't take notes of every case I go to. Did Miss Jones suggest to you that it was net a case of scarlet fever ?-Not so far as I remember. I don't usually take suggestions. Dealing with the giving of the certificate, Mr Price suggested to the witness that the reason why he gave it as scarlet fever was because Miss Jones said the case was reported in the town as scarlet fever. To this the witness emphatically replied that it was "absolutely wrong" and "most unjustifiable. Mr Meyrick Price-Are you compelled by law to give a certificate within forty-eight hours ?— You are compelled to give it as soon as you come to the opinion that it is scarlet fever. When did you see the rash ?—The 20th that is the second day. When did you certify ?—Tbe 21st. Did you examine the patient's tongue ?-Yes. And what colour was it ?-It was a mixture of red and white and various other hues. What was the patient's colour was it straw- berry ? What was the tongue covered with ? Various things. Was he flushed in the face ?—Slightly. Did he complain of frontal headaches ?—I don't remember. You ought to diagnose the case; you ought to look into the matter. Did you ask him if he had a headache? Did he complain of pains in the back and limbs ?—Yes. Mr Laws (to Mr Meyrick Price)-Do you say it was not scarlet fever ? Mr Price-That is what we may prove. Mr Laws-Are you going to prove it? Mr Price-We are going to do our best. Continuing his examination of Dr. Drake, Mr Price asked him if the patient's appetite was good.-I don't remember; it is five weeks ago. If it was only rash on the second day, would you consider that dangerous ?-It depends on the character of the rash. If scarlet fever rash then it would be dangerous. Are there different kinds of rashes ?-There are millions of kinds of rashes Is it not easy to detect the rash of scarlet fever ? -Sometimes it is; sometimes it is very difficult. It Is doubtful the first day ?—I don't see what you mean exactly. Was it difficult to detect the rash?—It was visible if you'd good eyesight you could see it. When did you telegraph to my client that the case was contagious ?-On the 20th, that was the third day, I wrote to your client. Witness fur- ther explained that later on in the day he had a telegram from Mrs Price Lewes respecting the case, and wired definitely that it was infectious. Will you swear that my client's son was suffer- ing from scarlet fever?—Yes. Mr Laws-You told her so ?—Yes. Mr Meyrick Price—On the last day what did you point out to my client; you had an argument about the case?—Not an argument. What did you point out to her ?-I don't know. Did you point out a roughness on the fingers ?- Yes, I did. Did you point out a peeling of the toes ?-I fancy I did. Did you point out that there was peeling on every part of the body?—I cannot remember. On the last day you saw him (the patient), was he downstairs ? Was he dressed on that day?— I cannot remember if he was. Did you examine his body on the last day ?-I cannot say. I examined him repeatedly, on many occasions. On the last day did you examine his body ?-I cannot remember. On the last day did Mrs Price Lewes complain of the nurse's behaviour?—Yes, she did. Did my client ask if it was scarlet fever?—I oertainly told her it was. Why did you allow my client's daughter to remain in the house?—There was nothing else to be done. I did the best under the circumstances. Did you order the rooms to be disinfected ?— Not yet. What did you order ?-One orders the rooms to be finally disinfected at the end of the disease. Did you order the carpets to be pulled up ?— Yes. Were the carpets pulled up on the first day ?— I don't remember. If they were allowed on for a few days would you not have complained?—Not necessarily. I might, or I might not. When did you first hear that the child had been exposed ?-I cannot remember which date. I did not take a note of it. Did you tell Mrs Price Lewes on your last visit that you were not going to carry the case on ?— No, I did not. In reply to a further question the witness said the reason he refused to call again was because his orders had been disobeyed. Mr Meyrick Price-Did you refuse to carry the case on ?-I have not refused. I should if I was asked. Is it possible for infection to be carried by per- sons who are in contact with. patients ?—Yes. Was the trained nurse in company with others in the house ?-If she was it was not with my knowledge. You did not know?-No. Mrs Price Lewes oomplained of the nurse's be- haviour ?—Yes, she told me that she had been doing what she ought not to have done. In the course of re-examination by Dr. Reid, Dr. Drake said that he had been house-surgeon at various hospitals. He was prepared to maintain that this case was one of scarlet fever. Mr Laws (to Dr. Drake)-You are perfectly con- vinced that the child was suffering from scarlet fever ?—Exactly. Mr Meyrick Price, addressing the Bench, before calling his witnesses for the defence, contended that Mrs Price Lewes, since neither Dr. Drake nor the Medical Officer had visited her house after September 10th, was quite justified in taking her son out for fresh air. Going into the medical aspect of the case, Mr Price submitted that Dr. j Drake was not certain whether he saw desquama- tion on the body, and contended tb&t desquamation on the hands and feet alone in the later stages was not infective. His authority for saying this was Sir Louis C. Parkes, who in his treatise on Infectious Diseases," said with regard to the in- fective period in scarlet fever: "Doubt exists in the minds of some qualified to judge as to the infectiveness of the later stages of desquamation (on the hands and feet only) where convalescence is well established." Continuing, Mr Price said he would prove that Dr. Drake made certain state- ments which were inconsistent, and most unpro- fessional towards his client, who relied upon him for the restoration of her only son to health. "There is no doubt," he proceeded, "that Dr. Drake was compelled to certify this case in order to protect his reputation irrespective of the child's health; and as he did not certify it within 48 hours of his first visit, as he ought to have done, he should, if he had any doubt in his mind, have called in the Medical Officer of Health to have a further opinion. This shows clearly that my client had some reason for not believing that her son had suffered from such a disorder." Mr Price then quoted a section of the Act in support of his contentions. Mrs Price Lewis was then called and sworn. She detailed had she was on a visit to London when she heard news of her son's illness how she telegraphed to Dr. Drake for information as to the nature of the illness, and received a reply that it was infections although she certainly did not know that it was scarlet fever then. In view of what she heard from the doctor she returned home, and was surprised to find her son looking so well. A hospital nurse was in charge of him, and she asked her if it was safe to have people in the dining room, and *her reply was that it was perfectly safe Mr Meyrick Price-Did Dr Drake call on September 10th ?—Yes. In the course of further examination, Mrs Price Lewes said that when she asked Dr. Drake if he was sure it was a case of scarlet fever he, after slight hesitation, said it was. He did not examine her son's feet on the last day he called because he had his shoes and stockings on. She was abso- lutely prepared to swear that he did not examine his feet; With regard to the roughness on the child's fingers, that was explained by his having scraped them with a toy engine, while the pimple he saw on his body was from the bite of a flea. (Laughter.) The trained nurse left the patient's room and went about the passages. She did not change her costume after being with the patient. She (witness) denied that she had wilfully exposed her son. The reason why she took him out was because his health was suffering very severely from being indoors. Before taking him out she thoroughly disinfected him, in deference to public opinion. When the Corporation official spoke to her it was in a very rude way, while she con- sidered that Dr. Reid had not treated her with that courtesy which her position entitled her to. Mrs. Elizabeth Gadd, The Norton, Tenby, hav- ing given evidence, and Mr Meyrick Price having briefly addressed the magistrates, the latter retired to consider their decision. Upon returning into Court, Mt Laws said the Bench thought the case a very bad one, and inflicted a penalty of £ 10 and costs ( £ 3 3s.) allocated as to £ 5 on the first sum- mons and C2 10s. each on the other two.
THE BARRISTER AND FULL NAMES. The annual Court for the revision of the list of Parliamentary voters for the borough and county was held at the Town Hall, Ten by, at half-past nine last Thursday morning, before Mr Ivor Bowen, Revising Barrister. The interests of the Liberals were watched for the County by Mr William George and Mr Howell James, while Mr Vaughan Kendall (official Registration Agent, Haverfordwest) represented the Conservatives. In the Borough Mr F. E. Mabe represented the Liberals, and Mr W. H. Thomas the Conservatives. The Overseers were represented by Mr George Lyons (assistant Overseer). THE BOROUGH. The Revising Barrister, departing from the procedure hitherto adopted by him of taking the outlying parishes first, dealt with the Borough lists, stating as his explanation for doing so that the Town Clerk (Mr G. Lort Stokes) wished to get away early. Upon going through the register, The Revising Barrister had occasion to draw attention to the absence in several cases of the full Christian names of voters, who were de- scribed by initials. He emphasized the neces- sity of the full Christian names in all instances being inserted, and enquired who was respon- sible for the list. The Town Clerk—Mr George Lyons. The Revising Barrister (looking round and seeing Mr Lyons, the assistant overseer, in court) said—With regard to the county electors' lists my first observation is that you must give the full Christian names -.hey must be put in. For instance C. R. Nuraey," "T. E. Elias who is T. E. Elias, what are the Christian names ? They must be filled in. Then there is "E. Thomas, Bridge Street," who on earth can find what that is Mr James Hughes—Ellen Thomas. The Revising Barrister (to Mr Lyons)—You are responsible for this. You must see that all the names of these ladies are filled in next year. Mr Lyons said that some of them would not give him their names. The Revising Barrister—Then object to their votes I have no idea who H. Oldfield" is is it a man or a woman ? It was stated that" H. Oldfield" was a woman. The Revising Barrister—Really, Mr Lyons, I must ask you to do it. Serve notice of objection upon them if they wont give their full names. Mr Lyons—Very good, sir. The old lodgers' list was then taken, when the Conservatives objected to the retention on same of William John Beynon and Alfred George Beynon, both of Camrose Cottage, on the ground that the house was of insufficient value. The premises, said Mr W. H. Thomas, were rated at only £10 10s. a year, and there was not a house in the block rented at more than £17 per annum. Therefore, insufficient value was his objection. The Revising Barrister—You must prove it. Mr Thomas—This house cannot be worth two lodger votes. The Revising Barrister—Do you deny that they are lodgers ? Mr Thomas—They are lodgers, but the house is not of sufficient value to carry two lodger votes. Mr Mabe, at this point, put in a paper. The Revising Barrister (examining same)— Your notice of objection, Mr Thomas, is bad. Mr Thomas said it was a mistake of his, and said he was sorry to have troubled the Barrister with the matter. Another Conservative objection was against the vote of John Richard Harries, of No. 8, Harding Villas, Mr Thomas stating that this man had been away in hospital since April last. The Revising Barrister—Is he coming back ? Mr Thomas—He will come back unable to earn a living, because he will come back with one foot or one leg. The Revising Barrister said that would not be an objection to his having a vote. Mr Thomas—He has not occupied since April last. The Revising Barrister—That objection is no use. I will tell you why. He has four months before the 15th July and four months after the 15th July so that he need not come back until next month. Eventually, after farther argument, The Revising Barrister refused to strike Harries's name off the old lodger list, although he said it was quite right on Mr Thomas's part to call his attention to it but said the matter should stand over. The Liberals objected to the retention on the same list of Frank Noot Rees, of St. Domingo Place, who Mr Mabe said had left that address on June 24th. He resided with his father, and according to the list his father was down successive Frog Street. The Revising Barrister—The law says a man can be away four months. Mr Mabe—But he has moved his lodgings in the qualifying period and gone to Frog Street he went on June 24th. The Revising Barrister—That is a different point entirely a different point from the other one. Mr Thomas-l say that he has a right to go to lodgings now. He added that his father kept both houses on-in St. Domingo Place and Frog Street. The Revising Barrister—You cannot change rooms in the same house. Mr Thomas—Rees has a right to go back to the same lodgings to-morrow. Mr Mabe (to Mr Lyons)—Who occupies the house Rees came out of ? Mr Lyons—Mrs Hurley. Mr Thomas—When did she go in ? Mr Lyons—I can't say. Mr Thomas—I say since 15th July. The Revising Barrister—The point is what happened before 15th July. Mr Lyons—Can a lodger vote successive ? The Revising Barrister—No. Mr Thomas said that if Rees's father changed his house the son would not be bound to. The Revising Barrister enquired if when the father changed the son went with him to the new house. Mr Mabe—Yes. Mr Thomas—Sometimes. Mr Kendall, at this stage, rose to speak. Mr Mabe said he objected to Mr Kendall speaking; he was the representative for the County, whilst they were now dealing with the Borough. Mr Kendall said he had also instructions to represent the Borough and went on to say that the point with regard to Rees's case was that he left his father's house on June 29th, but retained the right of entry until July 15th. The Revising Barrister—I should like to keep this old lodger on, but the fact is that he has changed his rooms. Mr Thomas—That is not proved. Mr Mabe—Next year this claimant can honestly claim a vote. The Revising Barrister (to Mr Thomas)— Are you prepared to deny that he changed his lodgings ? Mr Thomas—I say that he went to the new house with his father for convenience. The Revising Barrister—I cannot do it. Mr Thomas—I must Bay that you ought to— with all due respect. The Revising Barrister—I cannot alter the law. The law on the point is quite clear, that if a lodger changes his rooms in the same house he is disqualified. Rees's name was then struck off the old lodger list. The new lodger list was then taken, fifteen persons claiming to have their names inserted "in the list of Parliamentary voters for the Parliamentary Borough of Pembroke and Haverfordwest." Objection was taken by the Liberals to the first name on the list, that of Colonel George Ramsay Alwred Denne, of No. 26, Victoria Street, who was stated to have eight furnished rooms for which he paid two guineas a week. Mr Mabe's ground of objection was that Colonel Denne had not occupied the full quali- fying period, having been a householder up to September 29th last year. The Revising Barrister—When did he begin his tenancy i1 Mr Thomas—1st July, 1908. Mr Mabe—He went into the house on Sep- tember 28th. The Revising Barrister-Can you prove that ? Mr Mabe—A householder cannot go on suc- cessive as a lodger. In reply to the Revising Barrister, Mr Lyons, the assistant overseer, said that Colonel Denne paid his rates on September 25th and lived in Victoria Street until the end of September. Mr Thomas objected to the assistant overseer giving evidense. The Revising Barrister—You cannot object to evidence. Mr Thomas—The overseer is giving wrong information. The Revising Barrister-I cannot help that. Mr Lyons is the assistant overseer, and he can answer any questions that are put to him by auybody, and no one can object to what he says. Mr Lyons said that Colonel Denne paid his poor rate at the end of September, and the house was then vacant till Christmas. The Revising Barrister—What is the number of the house for which he paid his rates ? Mr Mabe—No. 34, Victoria Street. The Revising Barrister—Has he taken the whole house ? Mr Thomas—Yes. Mr Mabe—He sold his furniture in the Public Hall. After further argument, The Revising Barrister said he was not satis- fied with the claim, and would adjourn it until the end of the court. Mr Thomas—I must ask you not to take the ratebook as an authority. The Revising Barrister—I don't take it. Mr Thomas—1 must ask you to obtain proof of his having been a lodger. The Revising Barrister—You must do that. You must prove the claim it is your claim. I will adjourn this case until the last to-day. Mr Thomas — What evidence would you expect ? The Revising Barrister—No, indeed, I can't do that. You must prove to my satisfaction that he was in actual occupation from July 15th. Mr Mabe—He must reside iu the lodgings. The Revising Barrister-I should think that morally he is entitled to a vote, but legally, like all citizens of the King, he must occupy for twelve months, whether he is Colonel Denne or anybody else. In the course of further argument on the point, Mr Thomas said he could not bring Colonel Denne's landlady to give evidence, as she was very timid, which led the Revising Barrister to jocularly remark that the lady need not be afraid of either himself or Mr Thomas. James Griffith Evans, Tredegar House, Mar- ket Street, who according to the list occupied one bedroom and had the use of a sitting-room for which he paid 18s. 6d. per week, including board, was objected to by the Conservatives on the ground that he was an assistant living with his father, looking after his boot shop. Mr Mabe, defending the claim, said that Mr Evans lived the other side of the road, and the Barrister, accepting this, allowed the claim. The claim of William George Griffiths, Swin- don Cottage, Harries Street, who was stated to pay 12s. 6d. a week, inclusive of board, for one bedroom and use of sitting-room, was objected to by the Conservatives on the ground of in- sufficient room. The Revising Barrister remarked that 12s. 6d. a week for board and lodging was too little. (To Mr Mabe); Do you think he can be boarded for 8s. 6d. a week Mr Mabe—Yes, sir. Mr George—Fish is plentiful and cheap. (Laughter.) The Revising Barrister — Cheap Is it ? (Laughter.) After some argument, The Revising Barrister said—I am not satis- fied with this claim, and I must strike it off. I am against this 12s. 6d. a week I think it is absurb. There were three claims for insertion in Division I. of the Occupiers' List. In the case of Patrick Crockford, of Bridge Street, his claim was objected to by the Liberals on the ground that the premises had two occu- piers (Davies and Crockford), and this being so the rateable value (£17) was not sufficient to carry two votes. Eventually the claim was allowed. The Liberals objected to the claim of Arthur Ernest Cooper, of the JVhit-e Hart Hotel, on the ground that he occupied by service. Mr Mabe said Mr Cooper was the manager for Messrs. Allsopp, that the furniture be- longed to them, and that he was paid a weekly wage. The Revising Barrister—Who is down on the ratebook ? Mr Lyons—Mr Cooper. Mr Kendall remarked that there was nothing to prevent Mr Cooper taking a furnished house and being the occupier. The Revising Barrister—Is he living there now ? Mr Thomas—No. The Revising Barrister—When did he go ? Mr Thomas—This week. Mr Kendall—This furniture was Bold by Allsopp. Mr Thomas—We admit that the furniture was Allsopp's. Eventually the claimant was placed on Divi- sion II. Dr. John Alexander Drake, Llavallin House, High Street, also claimed to have his name in- serted on Division I., the nature of the qualifi- cation being described as "successive lodger and occupier." The Revising Barrister (in astonishment)— What on earth is successive lodger and occupier I Mr Thomas explained that the claimant had taken the whole house since last year. The Revising Barrister—You don't claim for him as a lodger this year ? Mr Thomas—No, because he has become the occupier of the whole house. I ask you to leave him on the list. The Revising Barrister—You must address that argument to Parliament. Mr Thomas said the name plate for the last two years on Llavallin House had been "Reid and Drake." The Revising Barrister—I can't help it. There is no successive occupation from lodger to occupier or from occupier to lodger. Mr Thomas said it was hard lines to take this gentleman off when he had increased his quali- fication for the claim. He was too honourable to make a lodger claim. The Revising Barrister said he could not do what he was asked, allow the claim of Dr. Drake. If he did, Mr Mabe could get a case stated at once. He (Mr Boweu) was not there to put people on the list because he wanted to he had to do his duty. He could not allow the claim. The Liberals objected to George Thomas, of the Seamen's Rooms, the Quay, being re- tained on Division I. of the Occupiers' List, on the ground that he was not the occupier but the caretaker, Miss Milward, it being stated, paying the rent. Proof of this having been given, the name was transferre'd to Division II. At this stage of the proceedings it was an- nounced that the objections against Colonel Denne and Harries had been with withdrawn by mutual consent between the respective parties, an arrangement which the Barrister characterised as a very sensible one. The Revising Barrister, addressing the Court generally, said this was the last day of his labours in Pembrokeshire, and both agents had put in between them, and they had dealt with, something like 2300 claims and objections. He (Mr Bowen), however, thought it right to say that a great number of these claims and ob- jections should not have come before the Court. By both agents the questions of law raised had been argued very ably and in a very fair manner and he was quite sure that the next register would be better than they had yet had it. They had had a great deal of work to do, —work which had to be done at great speed in some instances, and, possibly, he had not been able to give as much time as he thought he ought to have, but yet the result he felt would be very beneficial. He wished to say one or two things about the County Lists. The Owner- ship List must be carefully scrutinised next year. In his opinion there were belonging to both parties on the list some who had made claims which could not be substantiated. In his opinion there were a great number of owners who ought not to be on the list, and it was necessary that the Overseers should look into the matter and see what was to be done. As Revising Barrister he must direct the Overseers to look very carefully into this Ownership List, and if they were not satisfied with new claims they must object to them. Mr George then moved and Mr Kendall seconded a vote of thanks to the Revising Bar- rister for the great patience and courtesy he had shown during the courts. Mr Bowen, in acknowledging the vote, referred in eulogistic terms to the work of Mr George and Mr Kendall, and on passing paid a high tribute to the assistance given the Liberal agent by Mr Howell James, who he considered would make a first-class registration agent. He (Mr Bowen) was very glad to think that after all the hard fighting they all parted on the best of terms.
SENSATIONAL ARREST AT HAVER- FORDWEST. A sensational arrest, followed by a daring escape and exciting chase, took place at Haver- fordwest the other day. The police had received information that a man was "wanted" bv the Yorkshire police on a charge of alleged non-com- pliance with a maintenance order. P.C. Richards was detailed to the railway station to meet the trains, and on the arrival of the 11 o'clock express he saw alight a man who answered to the descrip- tion supplied, and he immediately arrested him. On the way to the police station the prisoner asked the officer to stop and give him time t6 breathe." The constable complied, but suddenly the prisoner struck Richards with a bag he was carrying and made off along Crowhill Road. Then there was an exciting chase witnessed by a large number of people. After having run a good distance with the constable in hot pursuit, the man, who was greatly exhausted, callapsed and was recaptured. He was conveyed to Yorkshire on Thursday evening.