In the Sentinel of December 19, 1901, wherein we published a somewhat full account of the case of Rex vs. Lewis, tried in Toronto, Can., we said in our introductory remarks that in this case Christian Science had a hearing upon the question of healing, before a court and jury, such as it had not had in any court in Canada.

After the publication of this number our attention was kindly called, by a Scientist of Toronto, to a case tried in the same court and before the same judge some years since, wherein there was evidence introduced of Christian Science healing. In that case there was much interesting and valuable testimony for Science. As we remembered that case it did not impress us as being so elaborate and important in this respect as the Lewis case. On reading the account of it as published in The Christian Science Journal of February, 1896, however, we see that it was more so than our memory had led us to suppose, and we are glad to modify our statement in reference to the Lewis case, so far as seems necessary.

We herewith republish the greater part of the former case, believing it of sufficient present interest to warrant it.

The account of this case was contained in a letter from Mrs. Isabella M. Stewart to the Rev. Mary Baker Eddy, and was published in Vol. XIII. of the Journal, page 469. From this we quote:—

Dear Mother:—I thought perhaps it might be interesting to hear just a little of the proceeding in the trial we have just been meeting in the case of the student who was indicted for manslaughter, because a little boy passed away while under her treatment. It was tried at the Assizes Wednesday, December 4, 1895. The mother of the boy was first witness for the prosecution, then the father. They told how they had been led to have Christian Science treatment for their family. The father had lain for six weeks with sciatica, under one of the best doctor's care. The doctor finally said he could do nothing more, and if there were any other help to be had, to seek it. He—Mr. Beck—then sent for Mr. Stewart, and after receiving the third treatment he came down stairs. With three more he went back to work in a cold shop. That is over seven years ago, and he has never had the slightest return of it, and has never had another treatment. For about three years this student had treated in the family the different members who had required help, always with good success. Some other members of the household then testified. Following these were the coroner and two medical doctors who had made the post mortem examination. They claimed in their evidence that had a medical doctor been called and given the usual treatment for diphtheria the child's life might have been prolonged. When cross-questioned, they admitted that they had lost many cases of diphtheria after having applied all the remedies they knew of in the medical practice.

When the Court adjourned for luncheon the judge would not allow the jury to go out, as he said it was an important case. He ordered lunch to be brought in for them.

After the doctors had given their evidence, the lawyer for the defence arose to urge on his Lordship that there was no case. And after much debate between the lawyers, quoting copiously from the law, the judge said, were it the case of an adult he would immediately withdraw it, but the deceased having been a child he thought he would have to let it go to the jury.

Our lawyer then said he had some witnesses for the defence. Five in turn were called, all this student's patients, none of them class students. And such ringing testimony as they gave of Christian Science healing! One had been healed of Bright's disease, another of chronic dyspepsia and severe affection of the bowels. Another said her two children had been healed of serious troubles, one of them who had to wear glasses for some eye trouble caused by typhoid fever, had been treated by one of the best oculists. The child laid aside the glasses after the first treatment by this student and has never needed them since; has had no pain in eyes since, but had severe pain before. Both had been healed of throat trouble. Another had been healed, and her child also, of bronchitis and catarrh. Another of fits and various other troubles of more than twenty years' duration. Her mother had also been healed of dropsy of ten years' duration; witness said she did not think there was a more healthy woman in the city now. Her father had also been healed, after having been ill for years and unable to work. He works now from five o'clock in the morning till midnight. (He has charge of a theatre, which accounts for his late hours.) One of our students was then called and questioned very closely by the crown prosecutor, who had Science and Health, and had been complaining because none were students so he could question them about Mrs. Eddy and the book. His questions were so ably met by this student, that the prosecutor, on hearing that he was not Mrs. Beer's patient, did not want to let him give further evidence. But it was evident the judge wanted to hear further, for he stated, "The jury have now heard his evidence, so I cannot see how it can affect your case to let him finish."

When he was through, our lawyer announced the evidence for the defence closed.

It was time for the court to adjourn. His Lordship turned to the jury and said, "I think from the appearance of the jury before me I can trust to let you go to-night, and not have you locked up. That you will not talk this subject to any one, or be talked to on it till you come tomorrow morning at ten o'clock."

When they resumed the following morning and the case was called, the judge said, "Gentlemen of the jury, I find that your services will not be required to pass upon the facts in this case." His Lordship then went into a definition of the distinction between manslaughter and homicide. Continuing he said:—

"The father and mother of the unfortunate child have employed Christian Science treatment for several years, with results as you have heard them stated. They had had medical attendance for years from a reputable doctor of whom they speak with the greatest respect. They are respectable people and well able to employ medical attendance; but on this occasion, the child being ill with sore throat, they thought they would seek the services of the defendant—Mrs. Beer—and she came. She was not expected to give any medical or surgical treatment. She did not make any examination of the body, throat, or sputa. These are elements of neglect which the Crown claims go to show that she was guilty of accelerating the death of the child.

"She was not called in to lay hands on the child. Her practice seemed to consist of sitting silently in the presence of the patient. She gave no direction regarding the treatment or diet of the deceased, excepting an egg for food and that he be kept comfortable. Homicide consists in the killing of any person either by an unlawful act or by an omission. The code further provides that any one who undertakes to administer surgical treatment is expected to have some knowledge of what they do, and they are criminally responsible for any omission.

"The prisoner had not undertaken to do any unlawful act, and any one can see that sitting beside a patient would not be wrong, and she did not do anything that would harm any life.

"She was not called to give medical treatment. She was called as a Christian Scientist, to give mental treatment, and it is proven she did so to the satisfaction of all concerned."

His Lordship quoted the law relative to those who are unable to look after themselves, showing that parents or guardians are responsible for the welfare of those under sixteen years under their care.

English law provides that the father was criminally liable for not having supplied medical aid, but under the circumstances he thought it would be doubtful in this case. "It is difficult to see how any one can abet any person in the commission of an offence where nothing has been done. I hold that it has been laid down as a general principle that there can be no accessory before the fact in manslaughter. Manslaughter generally implies the absence of malice or premeditation, although there may be exceptions."

The prisoner was then discharged and the verdict of not guilty assented to by the jury and registered.

It is but fair to state there were seven cases similar to this one in the Beck family, and the six were healed and all had Christian Science treatment.

His Lordship spoke at much greater length, but I just give you what appears to me the most essential.

The writer once heard a prominent railroad man say: "When I arrived at the age of fifty years I made an inventory of my life's troubles. I found that in my life I had experienced fifty thousand troubles, and that forty-nine thousand of them were wholly imaginary."

There is much truth in this. Most of the worries of this life are imaginary—most of the troubles borrowed.