ALLEGED UNSKILFUL DENTISTRY

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7251, 9 August 1907, Page 3

ALLEGED UNSKILFUL DENTISTRY

At the Magistrate's Couri. Ash'uurtou, to-day, before Mr V. G. Day, S.M., Alice Alary Philip Voyce (througii her guardian) sued Arthur Lonsdale Zoucii uo recover £100 damages for wrongfully extracting permanent teeth. Mr G. Harper appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant. Mr Harper said on the 24th March, Mrs Voyce (mother of the child), took her daughter to Mr Zouch's for the extractdon"of two milk or first teeth. Two incisors were coming through as permanent teeth. Mrs Voyce wished the milk teeth drawn to allow the other teeth room to grow. The assistant, ■whom she first consiilted, referred to Mr Zoiich, aud he loosened some teeth, extracting one tooth, and left the other to the assistant. The two permanent teeth had been extracted and the child suffered great pain. Mr Voyce saw Mr Zouch about it and the latter produced a tooth which he said was unsound. Zouch said that additional permanent/ teeth would grow. Zouch re-J fused to give up the tooth. The extraction was, in counsel's opinion, quite wrong, irrespective of the milk teeth. Mrs Voyce said she took her daughter to defendant's dentistry, for the purpose oi getting her first teeth extracted to allow the permanent teeth to grow straight. To all appearance, the second teeth were perfectly sound. She ■ later discovered that the wrong teeth had been extracted, and the child was suffering greatly. Told her husband and they went to Zouch, who produced one, and said it was sound, but malformed. He did not give the tooth up, but, would let them look at it.

By Mr Harvey—No Ashburton dentist'suggested that she should go to touch's. Would swear that Charles, an assistant, was not in the surgery ■with Hannaghan, who extracted some of the teeth. Denied saying: lake these out, they are ugly looking, bhe did not indicate the .-articular teeth .in Zouch's presence. Her attention was not drawn to any inflammation ' about the teeth. When they saw Zouch, he asked Hannaghan what the instructions were, and he replied that they were to take the incisors out. Her husband said that was not what he told witness. • Zouch said the space would he filled up in 18 months. Her husband asked if Zouch would guaran-tee-that, and did not remember whether he replied that only a -uack would do that. Her husband did not say that they could get some money out of this chap, and that he would not faco Court proceedings. By Mr Harper—The next morning she went to Mr Gresham and got a plaster cast of the mouth. By Mr Harvey—Took the child to Christchurch and Mr Newell, Dr Patteison, and Mr Nancarrow, examined the child's mouth. + i, o William E. Voyce, step-father of the child, stated that no one was assisting him with money Would be able to pay the costs. Saw the child in the evening after the extraction, and went to Zouch and asked him.what.instruction he had in regard to the teeth, but witness and Hannaghan differed on th By not remember who advised him to take the .child to Christchurch. Had no recollecion of anyone advising him. He earned hi Bs'per week. Ho swore that no one was backing him. He bad no money deposited, and could pay the costs of the case in time. Did not tell Zouch at the interview that he would have to recompense him for it. Frederick William Thompson deposed to having been a dentist for 16 years The permanent central lowct incisors had been withdrawn from the child's mouth. The teeth adjoining were milk teeth. Under no circumstance ought the permanent teeth to have been taken out. Neither should the milk teeth have been extracted. ' Without the removal of the teeth, the gums would expand. Now, artifH il means would need to be resorted to. J The jaw would be changing, and artificial teeth could be inserted in about eight years. The tooth produced was a lower incisor, but it had been broken in some way. There was no chance of any fresh teeth coming. In 99 cases out of 100, they were the last teeth to go. By Mr Harvey—There was no excuse for taking them out. Told Mr Zouch,. sen., in Christchurch that his son would ruin his practice if ho went down to Ashburton. Was a registered dentist by examination of the New Zealand University. Had a brass plate, "L.D.5.," up for some years, but was told he had no right to it. Even if the tooth was very bad and pus coming out, it should not have come out. The tooth produced showed no disease. A fang would not have formed for two years. To put the teeth right would cost 16 guineas. It could not -be done for three guineas. Had the milk teeth been extracted, the others would have altered by nature. Unless nature took its course, it would take ten guineas to regulate them. -' Would not consider it gross negligence if Zouch was instructed to extract them. The Dental Association were not assisting Voyce in this matter.

Dr Patterson said that he hold a qualified American degree. He saw the child in his surgery. In his opinion, it was not a proper thing to draw the teeth. If there was pus, it should have been treated in another way. Would not have taken the milk teeth out. Now, the space should be kept open until the child matured, and bridge-work should be done. On no account should the teeth have been taken out. Leslie Nancarrow, dentist, in partnership with Mr Talbot, Christchurch, stated that he saw the child's mouth. The permanent tooth should not have been taken out. Tho cast prodiKod was the one he made. Herbert D. Gresham. dentist, said that he had made a cast of the child's mouth. He took the depth of the cavity, to find out if the permanent teeth were really out. By Mr Harvey—There was trouble hmons the local dentists. Knew nothing as to who was paying the costs of tliis case. There had been no meeting of the Dental Association about the matter. For the defence, William H. Zouch said that he had received a letter from Mr Thompson, dentist, who told him that the case had hotter be settled out of Court. His (Mr ■.Thompson's) evidence would go against witness' son, and the defendant might he struck off the register. Understood that if £nO was paid it would end the matter. Told Thompson that his son was proceeding with the case.

William Thomas tfatmaghan said that Zouch extracted both tho teeth. and Mrs Voyce expressed satisfaction after the teeth were taken out. In the evening, Mr and Mrs Voyce came to the rooms. .Was positive that the proper teeth were extracted. Voyce said the child was disfigured for life, and he would need to be compensated. The tooth produced was the one extracted. Voyce asked his wife if the tooth was one of those to be extracted, and she replied in the affirmative. Matter was exuding from the cavity. By Mr Harper—Mrs Voyce said that the gums were inflamed. Would swear that she did not .want the milk teeth removed. Had not passed his examination, and was not on tho register. Thought it a proper thing to take out the incisors. Zoiieh was not called away during the extraction, and ho took out both teeth. Had not seen anything written in regard to the ease. Isaac Michael Charles said that Mrs Voyce came in with the child for the extraction of the lower central teeth. Mr Zouch entered the room, and he explained that they were second teeth, r.nd she was quite satisfied to have them out. He also remarked that they could bo treated, but he would not jrnnrantee satisfaction. She would not listen to that, and insisted upon having them out. He nulled one out, and showed it to Mrs Voyce, and then threw it into the fire. Tic then pulled the other out. and she remarked that slio was glrid it "is out. He kept that iooth, as ho snid it was n rare one. and put it in an envelnne. Five rm'nv.t«-, 'l.aW the child said that sl>o did . vnYfppl any r>ain. Zouch asked Mrs Yn'-^o if -(he child had convulsions. She i-i^li.-v], Wo. Af'or siio pxnvninod the ivonth. ?;]>p mild him. He had no d.v.ht -O-.r.h tho teeth indicated were evi'Ticto:!. In the evening, Voyce came and srn'd that he would have to he compensated for what had happened. "Oh, no; I won't," replied Zouch. Ho heard Voyce remark to his wife that

Zouch would not face the Court. By Mr Harper—Had not been told that- the dentists (witnesses) had stated that the teeth could have been treated. ■Had been at dentistry for. ten years, but had passed no examination. During that time ho had been with dozens of dentists. Tie mentioned one name, Sayei-s. He had also taken teeth out himself. The evidence was not gone through with anyone. Kis-Worship remarked that a similarity of expression had been used. Continuing, witness said that he saw Zouch put the tooth away. It was usual to keep teeth which were curios. <he tooth produced was diseased. Did not know the meaning of the word 'serrated." If the other dentists said it was broken, he did not agree with them. His Worship enquired if the witness had ever heard of a third set of teeth. Witness said there might be supernumerary teeth. Last night they had taken the tooth out from a drawer in the surgery. He marked it then, as another might be produced. j

a. ju. Zioiicii, cteieimant, stated that Mrs ■ "Voyce came with the child, and she said .that the girl had had a lot of trouble, and had spent sleepless nights. According to custom, he asked her if she was certain of the teeth to be extracted. She said, "Yes," and indicated them with her finger. Be. explained that there was other treatment, and it might come right by nature. She decided thnt the teeth were to come out. He then washed the gums and extracted one of the teeth. Showed it to Mrs Vqyce, and she passed a. remark about its being an uglylooking tooth, and was glad it was out. Witness threw it into the fire, and then drew the other tooth and showed it also. He said he would keep that tooth as a .curiosity. On examining the gums, he found that the bleeding had ceased. Mrs Voyce said she was quite certain that the girl had never had convulsions. She paid him, and left. Mr aiul Mrs Voyce came in the evening, and Voyco said that witness would have to pay compensation. Witness said that he objected to games of that sort, and called the assistant find asked what instructions he had received from Mrs Voyce. Remembered p. case with Mr Seymour. Had got a letter the following: day from Mr Buohnvian, claiming £75"damages on be-' half of Vovce.

!>v Mr Harper —Did not make any .mistake. He put the tooth away because it was malformed. The tooth would not have been serviceable if left in. The milk teeth would not have relieved the others. He had taken out incisors before in a- child. Knew no other teeth would come. The space might close up. He thought the case was a put-up thing to get money out of him (witness). Asked where the conspiracy began, he declined to state that. Thought that they were willing to sacrifice the teeth for this purpose, as they were not sound. He disagreed ■ with the evidence of the dentists: His practice was to refuse to take out a 'tooth if he thought it was all right. He did not instruct Charles in his evidence. Noticed piis with the tooth. James Irvine said that he had been a dentist for about 50 years, and 31 years in Christchurch. The tooth produced had evidently been damaged before. He would have acted exactly as Zouch did under Mrs Voyee's instructions, for if he did not somebody else would. His Worship remarked that that did not make it right. Witness said that anybody would do it for money. Personally, he had three teeth out, and had now scarcely space for one. Zouch did not display any negligence. It was wrong to take out incisors if it could possibly be avoided. Neville Speechley, manager of tho -American Dental' Company, Timaru, said that the tooth produced exhibited signs of a structural defect. He would have had no hesitation in taking out the teeth under the same circumstances. Dentists had to act on instructions, although he did not like it. Daniel Francis O'Malley, dentist, slated that the tooth produced was damaged somewhat, which might have happened before extraction. Under the circumstances, be would not like the job, but the tooth could have been saved. He would extract it unwillingly. Mrs Voyce, recalled, positively contradicted the statement that she had told Zouch that the child cried at night. Did not hoar her husband say Hint it would bo a matter for compensation. Mr Gresham, recalled, said that thero was no sign of inflammation the next morning. His Worship suggested that if there was any legal argument it could be heard in Christchurch. Tho question was one of duty to the child, not to the parent^.. Decision "reserved.