William Potter Townend owned Townend’s Chemist and Druggist Store in the Crystal Palace Building at 183 Colombo Street. Although Townend’s shop has an outward veneer of respectability and success, this could not be further from the truth.

Townsend Cinnamon Cure Ad, circa 1890s. Image: Alexander Turnbull Library ID: Eph-B-PHARMACY-1890s-01-front

An inventor of sorts, Townend created the typical medicines of the day to treat the common ailments Victorians suffered from. “Cinnamon Cure” was guaranteed to cure all common throat and lung ailments and such was his confidence in its ability to cure that he would espouse its curing qualities in the newspaper advertisements in the Christchurch Star as well as stack his shop window, to the hilt, with boxes of the stuff.

His other notable medicines were Townend’s Bilious and Liver pills and a children’s teething powder. An advertisement in February 1879 ran in the Christchurch Star:-

These pills quickly penetrate to the Seat of Disease, and speedily and effectually removed Nervousness, Headache, Acidity, Heartburn, Pains between the shoulders, Palpitation of the Heart, Interrupted Sleep, Harassing Dreams, Tendency to Start, to be Frightened, Spasms and Flatulent Distensions, Feeling of Fullness soon after eating with a weight or oppression, Impaired Appetite, & c, and all Diseases arising from Indigestion and Inactivity of the Liver.

The Proprietor confidently recommends these Pills as being especially adapted for that particular form of Dyspepsia and Derangement of the Digestive Organs so prevalent in the colonies.

Sold by most Storekeepers in boxes, 1s, 1s 6d, 2s 6d and 5s.

Townend’s Tasteless Powders, for Children Teething, &c. These Powders are the best and safest form of Medicine for most of the ailings to which children are liable. Sold by most Storekeepers in Packets 1s.

It appears he then moved into making cosmetic concoctions in later years. Advertising in the Star on June 24th, 1902, he purports to restore hair colour:-

Townend’s Sulphur Hair Restorer will positively restore grey or faded hair to its natural colour; it is not a dye. Priced at 2 s per bottle; by post, securely packed, 2 s 9 d. Townend, Chemist, Christchurch 2521.

W. P. Townend's Chemist,1897 Source: One Photograph, Black & White, 17 x 20 cm, 0952, CCL Photo CD 6, IMG0081 The Weekly Press, 15 Sept. 1897 p. 47

However it was not the medicines he sold, which lead to his notoriety. It was his association with his brother, Doctor Joseph Henry Townend, who also lived in Christchurch and practised as a doctor. In the photograph, a sign can be seen on the left of the chemist door, for Dr. J. H. Townend. This provides the viewer with a clue that the Townend brother’s worked from the same premises.

Dr. Townend had completed his degree in medicine at Guy’s Hospital in London and when the brothers emigrated to Canterbury around 1867, his practise became so busy, he employed his unqualified brother, William, to assist him with his patients. During the nineteenth century, it was not uncommon for busy doctors to refer cases to ‘offsiders’ who were unqualified doctors, but knew enough to handle simple cases. Unfortunately, the responsibility that Joseph gave to William lead him to being charged with manslaughter of a newborn baby boy.

The patient who had the misfortune to fall under William Townend’s care, was Mrs. Amelia Isaacs and her unborn baby,  of Colombo Street, Christchurch. Initially, she had made plans for Doctor Townend to attend her in labour however on the night of May 10th, 1876, Dr. Townend was otherwise engaged and William volunteered to come instead. Unfortunately, Mrs Isaac’s prolonged labour lead to William fearing for Mrs Isaac’s life. Having no forceps with him, he asked for a large pair of household scissors, to hasten the birth and fatally injure the baby.

An inquest was held at the Christchurch Hospital on May 26th, 1876. The Coroner informed the jury,

“Gentlemen, you have been called together in consequence of the death of a child whose body you will see. There are wounds on the head which are said to have been given prior to birth or at the time of birth. You will obseve those wounds, and hear the evidence to be brought before you. I will now go with you to the dead house to see the body of the child.”

The jury proceeded to the morgue where the body of the baby lay. On returning to the court room, the following evidence was taken from a woman engaged by Amelia Isaacs to assist:-

"Wanted Known" Townsend Chemist Ads, 1880. Source: Star, 28 August 1880. Image: PapersPast

I (Elizabeth Englefield) was engaged to attend Amelia Isaacs in her confinement. There was no doctor in attendance upon her until 9 o’clock that evening when William Potter Townend came. He tried the pains and said the child was coming feet first. About half an hour or three quarters afterwards he gave Mrs Isaacs a powder. This made her pains so great that they did not leave her…Mr Isaacs told me that if there was another doctor required he would go for one…I heard him say, “I will do the best for her if you leave her in my hands.” Before the child was born, he took a pair of scissors and used them internally – I could see this distinctly. About a quarter of an hour afterwards the child was born head first. It made a sort of wheezing noise when it was born; it was not like a child’s natural cry. Then the after birth soon followed. I took the child, and observed that it was bleeding from the forehead.  I washed the child, and there were two cuts down the forehead, extending into the corner of one eye. Before I washed the child, Mr Townend’s brother came and fastened the cuts together with a needle and cotton. The child, though still bleeding from the forehead seemed to go on all right until Sunday afternoon. No matter what I put on, the child continued to bleed. At 4.30 on Sunday afternoon the child took convulsions. We could only get it to take the breast once, and it died at 11.30 on Monday morning. Mr Townend’s brother attended the child on Sunday and called on Monday after the child’s death. Mr Isaacs sent Dr. Parkerson to see the child on Monday. Dr. Parkerson saw it at a quarter past 11 o’clock in the morning, before it died. The scissors produced (a large sized pair of pointered scissors with blood on them) are those that were used by Mr. Townend… 

Harris Isaacs said: I reside in Colombo Street South. I am the father of the deceased child. My wife engaged Dr. Townend to attend her in her confinement. She told me so. When she was taken in labour on Saturday night I went for him. I saw Mr Townend, and told him that my wife was bad, and wanted Dr. Townend. He said that he was Dr. Townend, and would be at my house immediately. He arrived about nine o’clock on Saturday night. About a quarter of an hour afterwards Mrs Robertson came out to me at the gate and said, “Mr Townend is butchering your wife, and you had better go for another doctor.” I went into one of the rooms and sent for Mr Townend to whom I said, “If there is another doctor to be required you had better let me know, and I’ll be off immediately, as I do not study money.” He said, “Mr Isaacs, there is not a doctor wanted. I will tell you when there is, and if you dare to move for a  doctor, I’ll put my coat on and walk out, and in five minutes your wife will be a dead woman.” I then went out of the house, as I could not bear to hear the groans of my wife. About a quarter of an hour afterwards one of the women came to me and said, “Come in quick, you’re wanted.” I went in, and Mr Townend mentioned a kind of doctor’s instrument that he wanted. I told him I could not remember the name, and asked him to write it down, when I would go for the instruments at once. He did so, and lent me his horse and buggy to go to his brother with the paper. I went, but Dr. Townend was not at home. I found him and we returned together. The child was then born. I heard it once make a noise more like a cat or an animal of some kind than a child.

Dr. Parkerson said, I was called on at 11.15 am on Monday to see the deceased child. It was then dying. It had two wounds on the forehead – one entering the right eye. I did not examine the child further. I saw that it was so near death, it would be improper. The child was breathing freely, though feebly, and appeared to me to be fairly nourished, full grown child, though not a large one.

Dr. Donald Campbell said: Dr Parkerson, in my absence, sent to see the child and asked me to go the next day, as it was not dead when he left. I went on Tuesday, and found the child dead. I examined its face, and saw there was a wound which had evidently been sewn up. Dr. Parkerson refused to certify to the cause of death, and I did the same, as I had not attended the child prior to death. I have since made a post mortem examination in conjunction with Dr. Powell. The child, from its appearance was fairly nourished. Externally under the chin, there was the mark of a severe bruise. Nearly at the angle of the right eye there were two distinct well defined wounds – the one in the centre of the forehead, three quarters of an inch long, and the other not quite so large. The wounds had been stitched up with common thread. On taking the stitches out, we found the wounds communicated underneath with each other. Dr. Powell at my request, introduced the probe, and it entered freely into the socket of the eye in the direction of the root of the eye ball which gave both of us the impression that it penetrated the skull and the brain. On examining the inside of the cranium opposite the root of the eye ball, I saw the lining of the skull was penetrated. To make sure of this I got Dr. Powell again to introduce the probe, which at once satisfied us both that the skull had been penetrated. On careful examination, we found the root of the orbit was, to a large extent broken up, and a small piece of bone got detached and fell out. At the angle of the eye and nose, outside a piece of the frontal bone was separated. The eyeball was quite uninjured but congested between it and the bone. The left eye had a wound at the inner angle, very small externally, but reaching to a depth of about an inch, not wound the eye or the bone. It did not penetrate the brain. We examined the other organs of the body. The lungs showed that the child had breathed well. The heart was healthy, and the fremen ovale was nearly closed which showed that the blood had circulated freely. The stomach and all the other organs were very healthy. I have no hesitation in saying that the child died from the effects of the wounds in the skull and brain.

By Mr O’Neil: I think the fact of the child being born alive, is sufficient proof that no instruments of a penetrating kind were necessary for the delivery of the woman. The size of the child’s head was not reduced ot any appreciable extent by the wounds, which could not, therefore, have assisted delivery. The fact of the husband not being able to bear the groans of his wife does not prove that the labour was very severe. He might be a very tender hearted man. The result has shown undoubtedly  that the use of instruments was not warranted. In the case of a face presentation, a doctor would not be justified unless there was hemorrhage in taking extreme measures to assist delivery without another medical man being present, even if he resided ten miles away. But I say, in this case, that the woman did not receive any assistance at all in delivery.

Mr O’Neil: If a medical man found that a mother was suffering so severely that it was necessary to sacrifice the child or her, would he not be right in selecting to sacrifice the child.

Dr. Campbell: That is my practise.

By Mr O’Neil: It is usual when a post mortem examination takes place for the medical attendant to be summoned but there was no medical attendant in this case. I do not consider Mr Townend a medical attendant. I look upon Mr Townend only in the same light as a nurse. I do not think a doctor would be justified in sending an assistant in a case of this kind.  When I cannot go to a case, Dr. Parkerson or some other medical man goes for me. Mr Townend cannot be a legally qualified medical attendant unless he is registered under the Act. His brother is properly qualified under the Act.

By the foreman: I am certainly of opinion that the scissors produced should not have been used in the case. I should put the likelihood of such an instrument as the scissors ever being required in a place like Christchurch, almost among the list of improbabilities. I should never use such instruments if I were within reach of any others. In the absence of other instruments to use with the scissors, they would be absolutely useless. As I have said, already, my impression, honestly and firmly is, that no penetrating instruments whatever were required in this case.

By the Coroner: Taking into consideration the evidence I have heard of the size and condition of the child, I am of the opinion that it was unnecessary to use instruments. I cannot coincide that such instruments as the scissors produced could be required at all. A face presentation always presents somewhat more difficulty than a head presentation, but I have had face presentations, and cannot ever call to mind having found the use of penetrating instruments, of any kind, necessary. In the absence of any forceps to expedite delivery, I cannot conceive that such instruments as the scissors produced would have been of any use whatever. If I feared rupture of the uterus, I certainly should never use instruments like the scissors produced. Judging from the evidence, rupture of the uterus could not be feared in this case.

Mr Townend expressed a desire to give evidence and the Coroner warned him that whatever he said would be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence against him.

Mr Townend said he had nothing to state but the truth and having been duly sworn, he said: My name is William Potter Townend: I am assistant to my brother, Dr. Townend. I remember Mr Isaacs coming for my brother on Saturday night. I told him my brother was engaged at the time, and asked if he could wait. He said he wanted some one immediately, as his wife was in labour, and I offered to go back with him. I did so. On arrival, I made the usual examination and came to the conclusion that it was a feet presentation. From one of the women, I learnt that the pains had been much more severe before I arrived, and, thinking there was a little inertia of the uterus, I gave her about half a drachm of ergot, which I believe is usual in such cases. As the pains became more severe, the child came down, and I found it to be a face presentation. About this time Mr. Isaacs sent in for me. I went to him and he asked if I thought it requisite to have another doctor. I told him not just then, but if I should think it necessary I would let him know. It was a mistake about my saying I would put on my coat and leave if he want for another doctor. Mr Isaacs must have formed this impression from my saying that if he liked to fetch another doctor, I would wait till the doctor came, and then give up the case. On returning to the room I endeavoured to turn the child and the pains became more severe. I supposed this was what Mrs. Robertson called butchering the woman. Shortly after the head of the child appeared literally jammed in the pelvis.  The pains became more severe, and the woman delirious. I sent up immediately for my brother. Before he arrived the pain became still more severe, the woman throwing herself about. The uterus was contracting so violently over the child that I feared rupture of it, and coming to the conclusion that the child was already dead from the severe pressure, I , to save the life of the mother determined to relieve the pressure. For this purpose, I introduced these scissors. I had no other instruments, but expected the forceps shortly. I tried with the scissors to open the head and let out some of the brain; in short to perform craniotomy to save the life of the mother. I tried to destroy the child. I had learnt prior to this, from the woman that in her first confinement, the child had to be destroyed by craniotomy and in the second she had a seven months’ child. From this and the constitution of the woman, I came to the conclusion that the operation was necessary to save the mother’s life. After using the scissors I inserted my finger into the wound in the child’s head, and its mouth to complete the delivery of the child. The child was not delivered by natural pains. The child was born alive and lived, I believed, thirty six hours. I have been in the habit of attending midwifery cases for nine years. I have not a diploma. In face presentations, even with natural delivery, the child often dies.

This concluded the evidence.

The room was then cleared for the Jury to consider the verdict. After the lapse of about fifteen minutes the public were again admitted, when the Coroner read over the decision arrived at by the Jury, which was a verdict of “Manslaughter against – Townend.” (Source: The Star, May 26th 1876). The case then went to the Supreme Court.

MANSLAUGHTER

William Potter Townend was placed at the bar and indited on a charge “That he did feloniously kill and slay a male child born of the body of Amelia Isaacs, on or about the 20th day of May last.”

Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the crown and the prisoner was defended by Mr Joynt, upon whose application all witnesses were ordered out of Court. Some discussion took place upon the introduction of new evidence, Mr Joynt saying that he had received no notice to that effect. Mr Duncan remarked that a memo had been left with Mr. Joynt upon the subject.  Mr Joynt said the only notice he had received was a memo with the name of Mr Isaacs upon it. It if was intended to call Mrs Isaacs, he ought to have been furnished with a copy of his evidence.

Mr Ducan said that he himself had not such written evidence. The Court replied then that he ought to have had. The first witness called was John William Smith Coward, who deposed that he was a Coroner of New Zealand and a legally qualified practitioner. On May 25 he held an inquest at the hospital on the body of a newly born male child. The prisoner appeared before him upon that occasion and volunteered to make a statement… On being asked if he wished to given evidence, at first, by the advice of his counsel, he declined, but after the evidence had been given he voluntarily rose and proposed to give evidence. Witness cautioned him that what he said might be used against him [The witness here read over the prisoner's statement at the inquest]. The scissors produced were not a proper instrument to use in the operation of craniotomy.

By the Judge: Those scissors are not such an instrument as a skillful practioner would use for the purpose of facilitating the birth of a child, by compressing its head. They were likely to produce death in the child certainly. A skillful man would apply forceps in the case of the child being obstructed; certainly not scissors such as those produced. I don’t believe Townend could have extracted the child, or do what he states in his evidence in reference to the delivery of the child.

By Mr. Joynt: Before the inquest I ordered a post mortem examination to be held on the child by Dr. S. Powell and Campbell. I ordered the examination because I had reason to believe the child had been destroyed unnecessarily by the prisoner. I had heard that his brother had been practising medicine in Christchurch but not that the prisoner had. The prisoner did not get from me the time and place of the post mortem examination. I did not look upon him as a legally qualified practitioner.

By the Judge: If the best known instruments to science were not at hand, I think a medical man would be justified in removing the child by the best means at his hand.

Harris Isaacs the husband of Amelia Isaacs, the father of the child in question, gave similar evidence that given by him at the inquest.

Cross examined by Mr Joynt: Dr Townend’s place was full of people when I went in, I only spoke to the prisoner in the first instance, and not to Dr. Townend, whom I did not see at all until he came back with me in the buggy. Prisoner told me he was Dr. Townend, but the other people could not hear him. Some of them were only a couple of yards away. He did not tell me that Dr. Townend was engaged and could not go.It was about a quarter to twelve when my wife was confined. When I got to the house with Dr. Towend it was about a quarter past twelve. This is the fourth child my wife had borne. Two are living. She had a difficult time of it with the first. It died in the birth. It had to be removed – was, in fact, killed in the birth. Another of the children is an eight month’s child and the other a seven months’. Both are alive. The prison did not explain what he meant when he said my wife would die if he went away. He said if he were to leave her she would be dead in five minutes.

Amelia Isaacs was next called. She deposed: I am he wife of the last witness. In the month of February I engaged Dr. Townend to attend me in my confinement. I was confined on May 20. I sent for Dr. Townend at a little before nine o’clock on that evening. He did not come, but the prisoner came instead. When he came in I said, “You are not the doctor I engaged; you are Dr. Townend’s brother, and I have no knowledge of you: but at the same time it does not signify so long as you are skillful.” He said, “We are all good doctors. I’ll do the best I can.” He afterwards gave me a powder which I at first refused, as I thought it was an overdose. I had taken three doses of a similar powder on my first confinement, but they were much smaller doses. (The witness here described the mode of her delivery). The child lived for thirty six hours. I saw it the morning after it was born. It was then bleeding from the eyes, the forehead and the mouth. Dr. Townend arrived after the child was born, and in time to bind up the wound that had been inflicted by the prisoner. 

Mr Joynt asked to have an opportunity of conferring with the prisoner on this last evidence, as it was evidence not given before the Coroner.

The Court granted the application and the cross examination of Mrs Isaacs was postponed until after the adjournment of the Court for luncheon.

Elizabeth Inglefield, the nurse that had been referred to, repeated the evidence she had given before the Coroner.Cross examined by Mr. Joynt: It was a difficult labour. Mr Townend was there about three hours. He tried for two hours to deliver the woman by ordinary means. A few minutes after the scissors were used the child was born.

Mrs Isaacs was here recalled and cross examined by Mr. Joynt: I was not delirious until after I had taken the powder. I had difficulty with my first child, and my other two were premature.

Burrell Parkinson, a legally qualified practitioner, deposed to begin called to see the child in question on May 22. He described the appearance and conditions of the child in the same terms as at the inquest.

By Mr Joynt: The child was fairly nourished – neither fat nor lean. The child was so feeble when I saw it that I new it was dying. It died of exhaustion – at least, I should think so. I only saw it for about a minute and a half. It was rather a small child, but was I gathered, full grown. I remained long enough to see that my services as a medical man were useless. I went there not to see what had been done to the child, but to see what could be done for it.

Mr. Joynt submitted that no evidence could be given as to the post mortem examination, because the Coroner had ordered the examination to be made, and neither the prisoner nor a representative was present. The Coroner had told them that he ordered the post mortem examination because he believed that the death of the child was caused by the ill treatment of the prisoner at the bar and yet no notice of this had been given to Townend. It was provided by the 22nd section of the Coroner’s Act 1867 (produced), that the accused in such cases should be permitted to be present. He therefore contended that the prisoner not having been present, evidence of the post mortem could not be given.

His Honor did not think that in point of law the evidence could be excluded as the Act said that the accused might be permitted to be present, but did not say that notice should necessarily be given. At the same time, he thought it was to be regretted; that in all cases of this kind the accused ought to be present. Of course, Mr Joynt could make what use he liked of this to the jury.

Mr. Joynt asked the Court to reserve the point.The Court declined to so so. The point of he law was quite clear. Mr Joynt said if the prisoner did not get notice of the post mortem, that was equal to debarring him from being present. He was not prepared to blame the Coroner.

The court was of opinion that the Coroner had committed an error of judgment (sp) but so far as the law went, it was in his opinion, very clear. If the law had said that the examination should not be conducted without the presence of the accused, it would be a very different thing. Mr Joynt: It seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. I must confess, I can’t see it.

His Honor: Well, I can; and I only hope that when you have considered the question carefully, the point of law will be as palin to you as it is to me.

Mr Joynt: I have been very carefully considering if for the last five weeks, and it is not at all clear to me.

His Honor: Mr Joynt, I don’t allow Counsel to tell me they don’t see the meaning of anything I may lay down as a point of law.

Mr Joynt: Surely your Honor-

His Honor: Let me have no more comment upon it. Let the witness continue.

At this stage of the proceedings, the Grand Jury arrived in court, and his Honor addressed a few words to them on the cases which had been sent for trial since the Grand Jury was empanelled, the one charge being embezzlement of cargo and the other a case of manslaughter, in referring to which the learned Judge directed the Jury that if they were of opinion that it was purely an accident they would not find a true bill. His Honor then read over Mr Joynt’s objections and the witness continued: He was of the opinion that death was caused by injury done to the skull and brains, and the external wounds -

Mr Duncan then asked the Court whether it would allow the evidence given by the prisoner before the Coroner to be read over in order that the witness might be asked if the treatment he had pursued was, in his opinion, the proper treatment.

His Honor, had no objection nor had Mr Joynt, and the evidence was accordingly read over.

Witness continued: I have heard the statement just read. As a medical man I consider the use of such instruments as those scissors to have been unnecessary even if the statement as read over be correct. If the head was jammed in the pelvis, I would send for the nearest practitioner at hand. If the head were jammed and there was reason to fear rupture of the uterus I say that a skilful practitioner was justified in destroying the child, if necessary in such a manner as to free the child from the mother with the least danger to the mother. Supposing I felt justified in destroying the child to save the mother, I would do it with anything that was at hand. I am of opinion that a medical man should always first try the forceps, but of course, if they were not at hand then other instruments or the nearest instrument available might be used. I saw nothing in this case to lead me to believe there was anything but a natural labour, and I do not believe that the child’s head was jammed; and I formed this opinion from the appearance of the child. It was quite inconsistent with what I saw. Had the head been jammed as stated, the head would have been disfigured. There was no occasion to have made the wound in the child’s head at all. If the statement of Mr. Townend be a true one, I have no doubt he did what he thought was the best, but my opinion is that the statement is not correct. I can’t conceive of a skilful man having supposed that the child in this instance could not be born alive, when as a matter of fact the child was born alive judging from its general appearance after its birth. Without extracting the brain, there is no use in perforating the skull. The operation performed by Mr. Potter Townend certainly had not the effect of reducing the calibre of the skull. In my opinion the use of the scissors did not facilitate the birth of the child in this instance, but they would undoubtedly assist in killing the child.

His Honor: I was not pretended by Townend that he wished to deliver the child alive. He has said distinctly in his statement that his object was to make holes in the child’s head in order to insert his fingers in the wound, and so have command over the movement of the child – to extract it in fact.

By Mr Joynt: I carry my forceps about with me invariably. I don’t know whether other medical men do the same. There would be many instances where the forceps would be utterly useless, and where the instruments of craniotomy would be the only ones that would save the mother. Rupture of the uterus is very rare. Such a rupture means certain death – not necessarily instantaneous. I could not take out the brain with those scissors. In this instance the brain, although penetrated, was perfect. That is to say, it was all inside the head, although torn up, and the bone broken and forced into the brain. that was in his opinion the cause of death. A young child will bear a greater injury to the brain than grown up people, but I don’t think an infant will.

The Court: I don’t wish to stop your cross examination Mr. Joynt, but I thought your defence was that your client killed the child.

Although his brother, Dr. Townsend spoke of William’s competence, Judge Johnston found him guilty of manslaughter. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment with hard labour. Townend had huge public support and five thousand people signed a petition in an attempt to have the sentenced turned around.

After his release, William married Rosa Perkins on February 6th, 1877 at St. Johns Anglican Church in Latimer Square. His occupation is recorded as a chemist. Later that year he gained a position at the Christchurch Public Hospital.

Wiliam Townend’s wife, Rosa died on October 16th, 1926 and William died on October 1st, 1934. They were buried together in Row O no. 266 at Bromley Cemetery.