TREATMENT BY HERBALIST

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26120, 24 May 1950, Page 8

TREATMENT BY HERBALIST

WOMAN AWARDED £B6B MAJORITY DECISION BY JURY (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 23. Damages of £B6B were given by the jury which heard the claim brought in the Supreme Court by Evelyn Anita James, a married woman, against Edward Ralph Martin, a herbalist, for negligent treatment of a facial rash. After a retirement of three hours and a half, the foreman announced that the jury was unanimous that negligence had been proved and that the special damages should be the amount claimed, £llB. There was a threequarters majority for the fixing of general damages at £750, with no possibility of agreement, he said. Mr Justice Gresson accepted the verdict and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The amount of general damages claimed was £3OOO. Counsel for the plaintiff was Mr R. Hardie Boys. With him was Mr R. G. M. MacGoun. Mr G. C. Kent appeared for Martin. “The defence will show that at all times the defendant acted within the limit of his knowledge, born of experience and within his qualifications as a herbalist,” said Mr Kent, opening the defence. Mr Kent said the evidence of the defence would show that Martin was invited to treat the plaintiff’s face for a dermatitis condition of some standing, for which previous treatment had not effected a permanent cure. Mrs James had been free to discontinue the treatment at any time. There had been some suggestion all the way through the case that Martin had influenced the plaintiff to continue his treatment: but, on her own showing, she had preferred to go on with it. The treatment had, in fact, been terminated without serious complaint and the parties appeared to have parted on reasonably friendly terms, said Mr Kent. “There is no evidence that Martin was noL acting sincerely and according to his rights,” said counsel. “The claim is essentially that the ointment prescribed by him and a slight degree of ray treatment exaggerated an existing dermatitis.” The ointments used had been successful on many occasions with other patients: one was an ointment sold by chemists as a dermatitis remedy, the other a simple and innocuous mixture of cod liver oil and glycerine, said Mr Kent. A number of people would come forward to testify to the good results in the past. “Martin has acted on the knowledge of experience with no scientific basis. He uses remedies which were used long before the British Medical •Association came into being,” said counsel. They included herbs which had been found to have a beneficial effect. Defendant’s Evidence The defendant’s evidence was that he had herbal knowledge but was not an expert herbalist. He did not solicit work but advised only people who came to him. He did not accept people who were already under a doctor’s treatment. His racial origin was North American Indian and a quarter Negro. The treatments he prescribed were part of Indian religious ritual. He confined them mainly to arthritis, and though he did not necessarily know th** theory of them he knew they were effective. Mrs James came to him recommended by someone. He began treatment for piles, and as far as he knew she received satisfaction. Then she asked him to treat a lump which appeared often on her face. For the skin trouble, the defendant said, he gave a brown ointment and told her to rub it on but not to cover the affected part with anything. He had bought it from a chemist in Wellington. He used ray treatment for the piles, but not on Mrs James’ face, because she could not stand heat of any kind on her face. She did not suggest seeking other advice until last September, when she mentioned a Chinese doctor who was good with penicillin and asked his ad-

vice. His reply was that if she thought a doctor’s treatment would be quicker than his she should adopt it. He thought that the cause of her trouble was perhaps an abscess or a decayed tooth.

In cross-examination on his previous occupations the defendant said that he came to New Zealand in 1909 as a singer with the Fisk Jubilee Singers. Donald George Wallace, a skin specialist, said that from his examination of the plaintiff on May 9 and the history of her complaint he concluded that there would be no permanent disfigurement. He expected her skin to be normal in two months.

Five of the defendant’s patients were called to give evidence in his support. They told of the use of ointment similar to that used on the plaintiff’s face with beneficial effect.