TREATMENT BY HERBALIST

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26119, 23 May 1950, Page 6

TREATMENT BY HERBALIST

WOMAN CLAIMS £3llB DAMAGES

SUPREME COURT HEARING AT WELLINGTON

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 22. A woman told in the Supreme Court at Wellington to-day of what her counsel had described as fantastic treatments given to her by a herbalist. She was suing the herbalist for £3llB damages, including £3OOO general damages, on an allegation that the herbalist had unskilfully and negligently treated a rash on her face. Counsel said that though she was now recovering, her face became stiff if the masks she wore were left off. After she had given her evidence she would show the Court her face without the mask.

The plaintiff was Evelyn Anita James, a married woman. She was represented by Messrs R. H Boys and R. G. M. MacGoun. The defendant was E. R. Martin, a herbalist, who was represented by Mr G. R. Kent. The case came before Mr Justice Gresson and a jury.

The plaintiff said that she first consulted the defendant about piles in May, 1948. He guaranteed to cure her. and payment of £25 n instalments was agreed on. He gave her one bottle of medicine to refine the blood, and another for acidity. There was a recipe for baths to remove acid from her system. He also gave her a brick. She was to put the brick in a bucket of hot water and sit on the bucket.

She complained that infra-red and ultra-violet rays which were applied to her face and her back irritated her face, and later the defendant discontinued the application to h».r face. When her health declined and she began to have heart attacks she consulted. at the defendant’s advice, a doctor, the defendant saying that she should not say she was under his treatment.

The doctor sent her to the Wellington Public Hospital, where a radio cardiograph was taken. There she was given an ointment for the rash which had appeared on her face and told to return if that did not clear it up. The next time she saw him Martin gave her a brown ointment to put on her face. Since then he had given her dozens of pots of the ointment. Spread of Rash At that time the rash was confined to the lower left side of her mouth. Martin told her to put the ointment all over her face, day and night, to drain out the acid. She did so and the skin of her cheeks came up red and angry the first night and the area near her mouth became like an ulcer. Martin said that the condition was only acid and to continue the treatment.

At a later consultation the defendant got lily leaves from his garden and told her to soak them in hot water and bind them to her face, leaving them on all night. The next day she was to wash her face and continue with the ointment. Within u week she began to get pimples all over her face, and crusts and sores developed. She saw Martin again, and he said it was acid coming out. He gave her raw potatoes, cut thin, to bind to her face at night. He also gave her marshmallow leaves which were to be boiled and the liquid applied. These treatments only made her worse, and Martin gave her a lotion, but she discontinued its use because it made her skin dry and sore. Martin told her his mother, an Indian princess, had left him parchment rolls which he had deciphered, and that was how he had obtained his knowledge. During 1948 he told her to rub lemon juice on her face, but it sent her nearly mad with pain and she could not do it, though Martin said he had known it would have that effect. By Christmas. 1948. her face was covered with crusts and sores. It was ■ tight and hard, and she could put only a teaspoon between her lips. Some time in July. 1949. he said that enough acid had been drawn off. He gave her Epsom salts and bicarbonate of soda with which to bathe her face, and light ointment with a fishy smell. In August he prescribed bathing her face with urine. This she did. Doctors’ Evidence Roy Ting Shang Law. a qualified medical practitioner, said that the plaintiff consulted him in September, 1949. about a rash. He diagnosed infective dermatitis. The superficial layer had been completely denuded, and pus was forming on both cheeks, chin, and upper lip. He gave intra-muscular injections of penicillin, and by October 22 there had been a considerable improvement, but so large an area of epidermis had been destroyed that no new skin formed. In January he referred the case to a specialist. The skin specialist to whom the plaintiff was referred, Ralph George Park, said that he treated her with applications and X-rays. She had improved. and active treatment was almost finished. She would probably have no ultimate disfigurement, but a year or two would pass before she was normal. Ointment similar to that which the plaintiff used on her face containing a large proportion of sulphur was used to treat scabies, the standard practice being one application. There was no scientific basis for the claim that the ointment could draw acid out of the body, and there was no treatment for piles by taking acid from the body. To Mr Kent, the witness said that there would be no scarring of the plaintiff’s face. Ultimately she would have no disfigurement. Another skin specialist. Walter Gordon Paterson, said that ointment similar to that which the plaintiff had used was usually used for a single application or only a few applications. He expected her recovery to be long. The hearing will continue to-mor-row.