| 4 Sep 1607 |
|---|
| Entry | D, servant to John SMITH 683 (qv), apothecary of Newgate Market, was charged by William Draper of St Bart-the-Less, and by Elizabeth Norton, housekeeper to Mr Willoughby of St Bart-the-Greater, of treating John Hasledowne & causing his death by bowel flux. SMITH appeared and made 'ridiculous' excuses. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | person unconnected with the patient or the case |
|---|
| Second initiator of the complaint | person unconnected with the patient or the case |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | absent |
|---|
| Action taken | SMITH to bring D to the next meeting. |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 13 June 1634 |
|---|
| Entry | Mr Cooper complained of D, but D had Dr Clement's instructions. |
|---|
| Action taken | Vindicated. |
|---|
| Verdict | innocent |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 3 May 1639 |
|---|
| Entry | Martha Willis accused D of treating her son John Willis. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | relative of the patient |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | absent |
|---|
| Action taken | D to appear. See next. |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 6 May 1639 |
|---|
| Entry | Mrs Willis, Anne Belamy and Sara Cowley accused D of treating John Willis unsuccessfully for ague. D was also charged with treating Mr Barker for a boil under his chin, for £20 - but the details were confused - D produced a prescription from Dr Hinton. College passed it by if the plaintiffs & D could come to an agreement. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | relative of the patient |
|---|
| Second initiator of the complaint | friend/neighbour/acquaintance of the patient |
|---|
| Third initiator of the complaint | friend/neighbour/acquaintance of the patient |
|---|
| Action taken | Settled out of court (?). |
|---|
| Verdict | case not completed |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 2 |
|---|
| 9 Oct 1607 |
|---|
| Entry | SMITH & D appeared. S claimed that they sold only 'conserve of roses and wild plums'. The Lord Mayor had received the conserve and a red powder by John Ely. |
|---|
| Action taken | No punishment. Ordered to bring the conserves to next meeting. |
|---|
| Verdict | case not completed |
|---|
| 4 May 1610 |
|---|
| Entry | D and SMITH were charged by Dr Goulston and failed to appear. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | other medical practitioner |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | absent |
|---|
| Action taken | Failed to appear. |
|---|
| 1 June 1610 |
|---|
| Entry | The case brought by the informer Gulson against Henry Dickman was heard by them in the presence of his master: the discussion split into opposing groups until at length by a decision of the President, the whole dispute was broken off. (see Book of Examinations page 10b.) |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | other medical practitioner |
|---|
| Action taken | ?None |
|---|
| Verdict | case not completed |
|---|
| 20 Nov 1612 |
|---|
| Entry | Dr Clement said that D had prescribed a purge. SMITH said that it was tabulas stibiatas, which he sold as did all apothecaries, and provided for Mr Noble, a country practitioner. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | college member |
|---|
| Action taken | See next. |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 4 Dec 1612 |
|---|
| Entry | D appeared and denied Dr Clement's charges. He was warned to give antimony tablets only on prescription. Dr Goulston said that he had heard D offer flowers of sulphur for a cold. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | college member |
|---|
| Second initiator of the complaint | college member |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | denied |
|---|
| Action taken | Case postponed. Warned to give medicines only on prescription. |
|---|
| Verdict | not proven |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 2 |
|---|
| 9 April 1629 |
|---|
| Entry | Mr Bale complained that D had treated his wife, Anna Bale, for 20s., and had cut her vein. They had previously used Dr Yelverton. D had Yelverton's recipe and confessed to obtain a pardon. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | spouse of the patient |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | confessed |
|---|
| Action taken | ?D was pardoned. |
|---|
| Verdict | guilty |
|---|
| Sentence | Pardoned |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 5 Feb 1630 |
|---|
| Entry | D was accused by Frederick Porter. Mr Seman, an attorney of Bow Lane, had recommended D to Porter. D had said that Porter had French pox, and had given him 3 mineral pills, wch caused delirium and mouth ulcers, and then a dietetic drink, and had charged £4. D said the pills were turbinth, ordered by Edward Harris of Smithfield (surgeon) & approved by BUTLER 135 (qv). |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | patient |
|---|
| Action taken | Harris & Seman to be summoned when Goulston & Meverall were present |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 5 March 1630 |
|---|
| Entry | D, Porter, Harris, Seman & his wife appeared, nurse, maid. Dr Goulston & Dr Meverall thought that Porter had surf (?) & scabies, not pox. Harris confessed to supplying pills, but for no fee, & denied prescribing them. Butler sent a statement undertaking the treatment. Seman said P had had little improvement from Meverall's medicine. Nurse had taken Butler a urine sample. B had sold P's maid Mary Clarke a potion as protection from the pox. Coll gave P a letter testifying he had no pox. P to prosecute Seman for saying he had. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | patient |
|---|
| Second initiator of the complaint | other medical practitioner |
|---|
| Third initiator of the complaint | friend/neighbour/acquaintance of the patient |
|---|
| Action taken | D was fined £3 but 10s. was remitted because of his poverty. |
|---|
| Verdict | guilty |
|---|
| Sentence | Fined £3, reduced to £2 10s. because of his poverty |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|