SECOND CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 128, 2 June 1938, Page 8

SECOND CASE.

ELEVEN JURORS.

WOMAN'S ALLEGATIONS.

HOSPITAL BOARD SITED. For the second time this season a Supreme Court case is being heard by eleven jurymen instead of twelve. By the consent of counsel concerned, the hearing of a claim for damages of I £ISOO against the Auckland Hospital Board wae begun before Mr. Justice Callan to-day with one juror short. The panel of jurors was insufficient, aud for j a time it appeared that the unusual | procedure of "praying a tales'' would have to be followed, because the door*. of the Court were shut and the names and addresses of persons in the Court i were taken. Had that procedure been followed one of those persons would hare been empanelled as a juror. i Aβ it was, his Honor explained to ' the jury that an agreement had been ! reached between the counsel that, in j the awkward position that had arisen through running short of jurors, the case would be continued with one juryman i ehort. i

The caee was that in which Mary Margaret Barry, a married woman (Messrs. Sullivan and Winter), sought £1600 general damages and £213 special damages from the defendant board (Messrs. Meredith and McCarthy). The statement of claim sail plaintiff was a patient inmate of the hospital from January 10, 1937, to October 19, 1937. She underwent an operation on January 11, and on April 7 and during one or other of these operations, the board, through its servants, left a swab or foreign body in the plaintiff's abdomen, resulting in great pain, lo<?s and injury to her. The swab was left eo covered or concealed that the cause of the resulting injuries woe unknown to her until after an operation on November 27. As the result of the swab being left in that way there was profuse discharging. Plaintiff was finally discharged from the hospital on October 10, still suffering ill-health and severe pain. Private Hospital Operation. On Xovember 19 the plaintiff had to enter a private hospital, continued the statement, where a swab was removed. Since then she had steadily improved in health, but 'still suffered and was likely to suffer from the injuries. The defence denied all the plaintiff's allegations and set up the further, or alternative defence that she had failed to begin her action within six months from the date of the acts complained of. The medical superintendent of the Auckland Public Hospital. Dr. J. W. Craven, the firet witness, produced the hospital records of the case.

Evidence by Plaintiff. When her caee was first diagnosed, stated plaintiff in evidence, she wae told she was suffering from venereal disease, hut it turned out eventually to be acute appendicitis. After an operation for that, she could not gather any etrenjrth at all. She had a dull, heavy pain, and acute pain when she moved.

Mr. Sullivan: Did you tell anyone of the pain? —I complained frequently to the nurses, but nothing was done for me.

She was discharged from the hospital, but wae readmitted on April 6, when another operation was performed. After th.at she had two sinuses, discharging. The? second operation was to her left side, the first one having been in the centre of the bodv.

After the second operation she w told there must be something there. She could not keep on discharging unless there was. Mr. Sullivan: Who told you that? Witness: Must I jrive the name? The person is etill engaged there? His Honor: Oh, yes. you must tell. Witness then gave the name. In October she was left to go home. but to go hack to the hospital later for another operation. She was taken to a doctor and discussed her case with him. He gave her a note to re-enter the Public Hospital. She refused to go, and gave him her reasone. She entered a private hospital, where tho doctor performed an operation. After the operation the pain ceased. Mr. Sullivan: Did you ask the doctor what he found? — Yes. He asked me what I wanted to know for, and said I was lucky to be alive. She told the doctor that she intended bringing an action against the Hospital Board

Witness told Mr. Meredith, in crossexainination. that she knew now what the doctor had removed from her. She denied that it was a diseased ovary with a cyst, stating that it was a swab. The doctor told her he had not removed an ovary. (Proceeding.)