I find a brief notice, in an American journal, of another series of cases, first mentioned by Mr. Davies, in the “Medical Repository.”  This gentleman stated his conviction that the disease is contagious.

“In the autumn of 1822 he met with twelve cases, while his medical friends in the neighbourhood did not meet with any, ’or at least very few.’  He could attribute this circumstance to no other cause than his having been present at the examination after death, of two cases, some time previous, and of his having imparted the disease to his patients, notwithstanding every precaution.” [Footnote:  Philad.  Med.  Journal for 1825, p. 408.]

Dr. Gooch says:  “It is not uncommon for the greater number of cases to occur in the practice of one man, whilst the other practitioners of the neighborhood, who are not more skilful or more busy, meet with few or none.  A practitioner opened the body of a woman who had died of puerperal fever, and continued to wear the same clothes.  A lady whom he delivered a few days afterwards was attacked with and died of a similar disease; two more of his lying-in patients, in rapid succession, met with the same fate; struck by the thought that he might have carried contagion in his clothes, he instantly changed them, and met with no more cases of the kind. [Footnote:  A similar anecdote is related by Sir Benjamin Brodie, of the late Dr. John Clark, Lancet, May 2, 1840.] A woman in the country who was employed as washerwoman and nurse washed the linen of one who had died of puerperal fever; the next lying-in patient she nursed died of the same disease; a third nursed by her met the same fate, till the neighbourhood, getting afraid of her, ceased to employ her.” [Footnote:  An Account of Some of the Most Important Diseases Peculiar to Women, p. 4].

In the winter of the year 1824, “several instances occurred of its prevalence among the patients of particular practitioners, whilst others who were equally busy met with few or none.  One instance of this kind was very remarkable.  A general practitioner, in large midwifery practice, lost so many patients from puerperal fever that he determined to deliver no more for some time, but that his partner should attend in his place.  This plan was pursued for one month, during which not a case of the disease occurred in their practice.  The elder practitioner, being then sufficiently recovered, returned to his practice, but the first patient he attended was attacked by the disease and died.  A physician who met him in consultation soon afterwards, about a case of a different kind, and who knew nothing of his misfortune, asked him whether puerperal fever was at all prevalent in his neighbourhood, on which he burst into tears, and related the above circumstances.

“Among the cases which I saw this season in consultation, four occurred in one month in the practice of one medical man, and all of them terminated fatally.” [Footnote:  Gooch, op. cit., p. 71.]