The Annals of the Barber-Surgeons of London - Unknown

Mould for y^e
Kings Evill.

2nd July, 1639. Anthony Mould called to this Court and questioned concerneing his practise in Surgerye, confessed that he deales onely in swellings and Kernills & hath a licence from the Kinge to practise the same, he hath lately taken into his Cure one George Ravenscroft for scrophilous tumo^rs in the neck, this Court at the said Moulds request, hath given libertye to Mould to cure him by Michaelmas next, & he hath promised then to present the said Geo: whole & well to this Court.

Some nine years afterwards Mould was again before the Court in a case of King’s evil.

21st March, 1648. Henry Ivatt complayned against Anthony Mold for his evill practice On the Wife of the said Ivatt who being afflicted with the Kings Evill Whereof he undertooke to cure her And for that purpose did receive of the said Ivatt xxx^s in hand and was to have 40^s more when she was cured Both partyes refeered themselves to this Court Whereupon this Court doth Order That the said Mold doth restore xx^s back againe to the said Ivatt Which he promised to pay accordingly And soe all differences betweene the said parties by theire owne consent to cease and determine.

6th February, 1646. It is this day ordered That our M^r and M^r Warden Browne [207] with the other Assistants Surgeons present doe move the Sheriffs That at the time of Execuc͠on a Body be quietly delivered to this Companye’s officer for an Anatomy.

9th March, 1646. This day M^r Warden Browne acquainted this Court that whereas he about 6 yeares sithence had a child of M^r Hamonds to his Patient with whome he upon his first calling thither found M^r Thomas Bowden [208] with others Who after presentac͠on made by the Motion of M^r Warden Browne dyed, that he hath bin reported by the ffather of the child to have murthered the child And that M^r Thomas Bowden had justifyed and would justify the same of w^ch scandall M^r Warden complayneing to this Co^rt M^r Bowden prayed to be excused from giveing any answer thereunto ffor that there was a Suite at Law now depending betweene M^r Hamond and M^r Warden Browne concerning that matter.

23rd April, 1646. Mr. Martin Browne requested and had a Committee of Examiners to enquire into the case of Hamond’s child, and to report to the Court.

14th May, 1646. The Committee brought up their Report, finding that on the 28th January, 1639, Mr. Browne was called to Mr. Hamond’s child in Bow Lane, the child having fallen out of a window and seriously injured its head. That Mr. Browne consulted with Dr. Spicer and Mr. Thomas Bowden (whom he found there) and as they all conceived the child to be in danger, presentation was duly made to the Wardens of the Barber-Surgeons, that thereupon by general consent, the child was let blood and had a glister, and the next day his head was shaved and a cataplasm applied, that these remedies were continued for about eight days and that then it was deemed advisable to open the head, which was done by Mr. Browne with a Trapan in the presence and with the advice and approbation of Mr. Serjeant Clowes (then Master), Mr. George Dunn [209] (Warden), Mr. William Kings,[210] Mr. Eaton and the said Mr. Bowden, and that the child died on the 15th day, that proper remedies had been duly applied and that everything had been done with great care according to art.

23rd October, 1646. This Court doth order That all the approved Chirurgeons according to Law shall appeare at all publique Anatomyes for the time to come in a fflatt Capp upon the penalty of 3^s 4^d and all the rest of the Livery in a Hatt.