| 5 Dec 1589 |
|---|
| Entry | L was summoned. |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | absent |
|---|
| Action taken | Summoned. |
|---|
| 18 Dec 1589 |
|---|
| Entry | L, surgeon, confessed that he had practised medicine for a long time. He had treated dropsy, gout and rheumatism, and even more serious diseases. He had administered a purgative diet - confectis Hamech & Diaphoenicon - as often as 3, 4 or 5 times a day. |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | confessed |
|---|
| Action taken | Deferred. |
|---|
| 5 Feb 1591 |
|---|
| Entry | Lumken [among others] was to be asked to appear in the next Comitia. |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | absent |
|---|
| Action taken | To be summoned to the next Comitia. |
|---|
| 29 March 1591 |
|---|
| Entry | Arthur Gorge had sent a severe letter against L. It was read and L was asked to bring forward a letter which Gorge had written in his favour. |
|---|
| Pressure applied by College | yes |
|---|
| Action taken | ? |
|---|
| Verdict | guilty |
|---|
| Sentence | ? |
|---|
| 5 Nov 1591 |
|---|
| Entry | L was summoned. |
|---|
| Attitude of the accused | absent |
|---|
| Action taken | Summoned. |
|---|
| Verdict | case not completed |
|---|
| 12 July 1605 |
|---|
| Entry | John Shepard, apothecary, appeared and charged L with giving purgative pills to Mrs Hill, who was staying at the White Hind, Cheapside, and of putting 'an oily extract of sulphur into her eyes thereby causing inflammation of the eyes and the danger of blindness'. Dr Wilkinson accused S of prescribing stupefactive pills (labdanum Paracelsi) for Stocday of Cheapside, who was suffering from sciatica. The pills caused a total suppression of urine, and Stocday died on the 11th day. |
|---|
| Initiator of the complaint | other medical practitioner |
|---|
| Second initiator of the complaint | college member |
|---|
| Action taken | See next. |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 2 |
|---|
| 19 July 1605 |
|---|
| Entry | Questioned about Mrs Hill, L said it was an inflammatory discharge from the eyes 'and that it was salt'. He refused to reply in Latin, of which he confessed ignorance. He was found guilty of bad practice, unbecoming behaviour and abusive language. |
|---|
| Action taken | Found guilty, fined £20 and imprisoned. |
|---|
| Verdict | guilty |
|---|
| Sentence | Fined £20 and imprisoned |
|---|
| Number of crimes | 1 |
|---|
| 20 July 1605 |
|---|
| Entry | A letter on L's behalf from the Earl of Northumberland arrived (dated 19 July 1605). L, he said, was 'one whom I make good accompt of, having procured him to com over for some speciall purpose. I meane to use him for my owne health'. L had previously treated the Earl's brother. The Earl requested L's release. College wrote back agreeing (20 July 1605). |
|---|
| Pressure applied by College | yes |
|---|
| Action taken | College agreed to release L on petition of Earl of Northumberland. |
|---|
| 17 July 1606 |
|---|
| Entry | L was imprisoned (17 July). The Archbishop of Canterbury requested his freedom, but on hearing the President and Censors left the matter to the College (22 July). L was eventually freed on the request of men 'deserving well of the College', on condition that he bound himself for £40 not to practise in future. |
|---|
| Action taken | Imprisoned but freed on request of well-wishers on bond of £40. |
|---|
| Verdict | guilty |
|---|
| Sentence | Imprisoned. Freed on providing bond of £40 to abstain |
|---|