ALLEGED NEGLIGENT TREATMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume XIX, Issue 147, 22 June 1888, Page 4

ALLEGED NEGLIGENT TREATMENT.

CLAIM FOR £400 DAMAGES FOR

LOSS OF AN EYE,

The Supreme Court was occupied for some hour s to-day with a claim for damages brought by ilrs Ada Freestone against Thomas Brutton Kenderdine, for alleged negligent treatment, resulting in the loss of an eye. The case was heard by His Honor Mr Justice Gillies and a special jury of four. Dr. Laishlsy and Mr W. J. Napier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr C. E. Button for the defence. Mr Napier said this was an action brought by Ada Freestone, wife of John Freestono, of Eden Terrace, against Dr. Kenderdine, a physician practising in Auckland. The plaintiff consulted the defendant with regard to a slight inflammation of the right eye. She submitted to be examined, became a patient of defendant's, and in all ways cazried out his instructions. It was alleged that the defendant negligently prescribed and treated the plaintiff, causing the total destruction of her left eye. She now claimed £400 damages. Two statements of defence had been put in, and there was a marked distinction between them. The first ad mittcd the allegation that there was a slight inflammation of the eye, and the second said that it was not at all a slight inflammation, but a severe opthalma. Mr Napier further stated that the remedy prescribed was a canfcharides blister, which was placed over . the. plaintiff's eye* according to instruction.*, and six'hburs later the eye \yas reduced to a mere jelly.—Dr. Laishley called Ada Freestone, who deposed that in August, 1886, she caught cold in her left eye. She went to Dr. Kenderdine about two weeks later, in company with her sister-in-law, Julia Freestone. Dr. Kenderdine examined her eye, and said that she had caught a slight cold in it. He wrote her out a prescription to take to Mr Edson, the chemist, and told her that she would get a blister which she was to put over her eye, and the lotion of which she was to put two or three drops into her eye. She got the prescription filled at Mr Edson'p and placed the blister over the eye. She then went to bed and after a few hours felt greatpaiu, inconsequenceof which she got up and removed the blister. The eye was then a mass of jelly, and its power of sightgone. She continued ill about a month. About six weeks after she went, in company with, her mother-in-law, to Dr. Wilkins, and also to Dr. Kenderdine. She told Dr. Kenderdine about the blister, and that Dr. Wilkins had said it must be seen to directly, to save the sight of the other eye. She explained that she was very poor, and asked if he could give her any relief. He looked at the eye, and said "No; I do not think there is any sight there whatever." Ho also said, "If I told you to put the blister over your eye, I didn't tell you to open your eye and put it into it. If you had put the bli3ter over the eye with the cyolid closed, it could never have happened." She told him that she did do so, and asked him if he knew of anyone that could see to her eye, as he said he did nob understand much about the eye—he was not an oculist. He advised her to go to young Dr. Purchas, who he thought was clever about the eyes. A few days after she went to Dr. Purchas, and he took out her eye.—ln cross-examination by Mr Button witness said that it was true that the blister drew her eye on to the side of her face, that Dr. Kenderdine did not tell her how long to keep the blister on. He told her to apply the lotion every three or four hours. She.did not send for a doctor earlier because she had no means. Witness did not ejtpe.ct.-that she was to be treated gratuitously. Her mother-in-law had said that she did not lite to bring this case against Dr. Kenderdine, because he had been so kind to her and her family. She thought that he gave money back out of fees that; were offered to him. Dr. Purchas told her that ahe had no case, and advised her not to bring this action. She told Dr. Purchas that it would cost her nothing unless she succeeded. This was true, because she had told her solicitor about her circumstances, and asked him to take up her case out of sympathy. Dr. Kenderdine denied that he told her to put the blister on her eye. It was about October of last year that the operation was performed. — Corroborative evidence was given by Julia Freestone, who was also cross-examined by Mr Button afc considerable length. Corroborative evidence was likewise given by Martha Freestone, mother-in-law of the plaintiff., The latter, in answer to Mr Button, said that she told Dr. Purcha.s that she did not like to bring the action against Dr. Kenderdine because she liked ttie gentleman. When she came to Auckland she was in poor circumstances and Dr. Kenderdine attended to her. When she got some money she paid Dr. Kenderdine, and ho offered her back f 1 for her promptness. She refused to accept it, and he put it into her baby's hands. Catherino Kingham gavo evidence as to the condition of plaintiffs eye after the blister had been applied. The eye was nothing but jelly. (Left sitting.)