To emphasise her skills, forty-four year old Mrs Hughes told Elizabeth Ann Wistow that she had been a midwife for the last twenty-three years, so she was very experienced. The pregnant mother, lived with her father Samuel on Coleridge Road, Sheffield, and was overjoyed therefore on 17 January 1896 when she gave birth to a healthy child. However her joy did not last, as just four days later Elizabeth Wistow herself died. An inquest was arranged to be held at the Coach and Horses Hotel in Attercliffe, Sheffield on Wednesday 22 January. Right from the beginning, it was quickly established that enquiries had been made which revealed that the midwife Elizabeth Hughes had ignored some crucial medical advice.
The coroner, Mr D Wightman told the inquest that she had ‘acted contrary to advice given to her by Dr Harvey Littlejohn, the Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield.’ Therefore at that point he had no option but to allow more enquiries to be made, so the inquest was adjourned until Friday 31 January 1896. When it was resumed, a local solicitor, Mr Albert Howe attended the enquiry on behalf of the midwife. Surgeon Mr D Pettigrew gave evidence that he had been called in to see the deceased on the night before her death. Mrs Wistow had a very high temperature and was obviously in a dying condition. After her death he signed the certificate stating that the death was due to puerperal fever.
When Mr Howe asked the surgeon about the state of the house on Coleridge Road, he had to admit that ‘the house was anything but satisfactory’ in his opinion. He agreed with Dr Howe that such conditions might have contributed to the deceased woman’s death. However, when the coroner asked Mr Pettigrew about another death, that of a Mrs Sarah Jane Lunn of Belmore Road, Attercliffe, he had to admit that she too had been attended to by Mrs Hughes. He added that she also died on 13 January. Another surgeon, Mr W Kerr Smith told the inquest that he had made a post mortem examination on Elizabeth Ann Wistow and found she had indeed died from puerperal fever.
He stated that two different women dying of the same thing clearly amounted to gross culpable neglect on the midwife’s behalf. The next witness was Dr Littlejohn and he stated that he had heard about the death of Mrs Lunn on 14 January and had appointed another inspector to investigate the case. He also requested Mrs Hughes to call on him and the midwife did so 15 January. She expressed sorrow on hearing about the death of Mrs Lunn. Dr Littlejohn informed Mrs Hughes that she was to be very careful about her own hygiene and instructed her on disinfecting herself and her clothing before attending to any other expectant mothers. In fact he warned her not to attend any more midwifery cases for the next three weeks, at the same time admitting that he had no power to make her obey his instructions.
Mrs Hughes appeared to accept his advice, but he also said that if any more mothers were to die at her hands, he would be writing to the coroner about the matter. One of the jury asked him if the condition of the house had any effect on the fever, but Dr Littlejohn just shook his head. He replied categorically that in his opinion the midwife appeared to him to have been the most probable person to have carried the puerperal fever to the deceased women. Then it was time for Elizabeth Hughes to speak for herself. She gave the opinion that she felt that Mrs Lunn had died, not from puerperal fever but from inflammation of the lungs.
However she admitted that she had seen the Medical Officer of Health on 15 January, although claiming that she had not heard him instruct her not to attend any more midwifery cases for three weeks. Then it was time for the coroner to sum up the case for the jury. Mr Wightman told them that Mrs Hughes was a very experienced midwife. Therefore she should have known that there was a risk in attending any other pregnant woman after any death from puerperal fever. The coroner stated that whether or not the midwife heard Dr Littlejohn instructing her not to attend any more births or not, should have no impact on the jury’s verdict. As a result they were absent for some time before bringing in a verdict of manslaughter against Elizabeth Hughes.
Immediately, Detective Officer Masterman took the midwife into custody and she was then remanded until the following Monday. Accordingly on Monday 10 February 1896, the midwife was brought before the stipendiary magistrate Mr E Welby at the City Police Court where she pleaded not guilty. However she was simply remanded for a week. The following Monday, the 17 February 1896 she was brought once more before the Sheffield magistrates, once again charged with manslaughter. Mr R Fairburn appeared for the prosecution and he told the court that it was alleged that the prisoner ‘on account of her own negligence, resulted in the contagion of puerperal fever being communicated to the patient who died.’
Mr Fairburn again described the advice given to the prisoner by Dr Littlejohn, which she had obviously ignored. The Medical Officer of Health for Sheffield himself was the next witness and the surgeon repeated his advice to Elizabeth Hughes not to attend any more cases for three weeks. However he told the jury that she attended the next childbirth case in less than a fortnight. The same witnesses gave the same evidence before the midwife was committed to take her trial at the next Assizes. Accordingly Mrs Elizabeth Hughes was brought before judge, Mr Justice Collins at the West Riding Assizes on Monday 16 March 1896.
Charged with manslaughter, she was defended by Mr C Mellor and the prosecution was undertaken by Mr Harold Thomas. He immediately opened the case by stating that in any indictment for manslaughter there needed to be a clear intention of motive. He reminded the court that the accused had been a practising midwife for twenty-three years and would therefore not be ignorant of how to deal with cases of puerperal fever. He said that any person who undertook to cure another, whether a medical practitioner or midwife must have a certain knowledge about diseases and what their effects were. So whether she heard Dr Littlejohn or not, she ought not to have put herself in a position where she might infect another woman.
When it was time for Dr Pettigrew to repeat his advice to the prisoner to wait at least three week, he was questioned by the defence. Mr Mellor asked him what other causes of puerperal fever might cause a woman’s death. The surgeon listed infection, dirt from insanitary condition and sewage gas etc. Dr Harvey Littlejohn was the next witness and he repeated the evidence given previously. He stated that he had fixed the time limit of three weeks, as he was well aware that being a midwife was Mrs Hughes calling. He said that if there had been another case of a mother treated by Mrs Hughes dying from puerperal fever, he would have fixed the time at two months.
However questioned by Mr Mellor, the Medical Officer of Health admitted that he saw no signs of puerperal fever in the post mortem. This was confirmed by another doctor, who had been also present at the post mortem. In the prisoners defence Mr Mellor claimed that the death of Mrs Wistow was due to ‘misadventure, rather then culpable negligence.’ He added that it was state of affairs which nobody regretted more than the accused midwife. He emphasised how she had earned and enjoyed the confidence of all of the women in her care. After her discussion with Dr Littlejohn, she had disinfected herself and her clothes most carefully, yet sadly Mrs Wistow still died.
Mr Mellor agreed that death was due to puerperal fever, but he told the jury that they had two issues to consider. They had to decide firstly whether the prisoner took the infection to the place of birth and secondly whether she took it recklessly and with culpable criminal carelessness. The prisoners defence concluded that ‘if ever there was a case in which a jury should exonerate a woman, this was the case.’ His Lordship in summing up, told the jury that they should be completely satisfied that the prisoner caused the death of Mrs Wistow. Assuming that they were satisfied of that, they must also be satisfied that it was a case of culpable negligence.
Thankfully after her long ordeal, the jury, after only a short consultation between themselves found Elizabeth Hughes not guilty and she was immediately discharged.