CHEMISTS AND THE PUBLIC. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

Evening Post, Volume XVII, Issue 515, 21 May 1879, Page 2

CHEMISTS AND THE PUBLIC. IMPORTANT JUDGMENT.

WATSON V. MONTBITH. In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of £80, for damages alleged to have been sustained through the unskilml treatment by the defendant of the plaintiff's hand. Tl,\e plaintiff having injured his band through the bursting of a lemonade bottle, and having failed in procuring the services of a legally qualified I surgeon, went to the defendant, * chemist, in Manners-street, -who for many years was connected with the Wellington Hospital, and who, according to the evidence of Dr. Johnston, the Surgeon-Superintondent of the Hospital, 'attended to many such minor surgical operations as were required to fee performed upon the plaintiff with his entire approval. All tbe medical witnesses agree that the treatment in the first instance was correct, and as far as I can gather from the evidence, the unskilful treatment, if any, arose from not causing incisions- to be made when it became apparent that matter was increasing ; but I think lam correct in concluding from the medical testimony that cutting, in the firat instance, may not have been, and probably was not, necessary, but that a person seeing the wound daily would . know wp.gn it Would be proper and right to cut to release the accumulated matter. If therefore the treatment in the first instance was correct, tbe only question to be decided is whether the plaintiff/ Supposing him* to have had the opportunity ot examining the wound day by day, neglected to incise the arm when an accumulation of matter rendered such an operation necessary. The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital on the 25th March. The accident occurred on the 18th. The plaintiff stated that he attended daily at the defendant's up to bis admission to the hospital, and if I could believe this statement I should award very substantial damages, because there can be no doubt that on the day he went to the hospital if he had been receiving daily treatment, he bad been grossly neglected, and the person guilty of such neglect should be made to suffer. From the evidence of Mr. FitiGerald the defendant's assistant who was for some time dresser at St. Thomas's Hospital, London, aod who was considered qualified to bo sent to this colony in charge of emigrants, it may, I think, be assumed that, though not a legally qualified medical practitioner under onr coloflial Act,. yet that he was fully qualified to attend to tttch a minor operation as was required in tbe present instance. Mr. FitzGerald stated that the last time he saw the plaintiff was on the 21st, and --- produced tbe day-book corroborating his statement; aod though some attempt was made to confirm the plaintiff that he called upon the defendant after that day, I am inclined on this point to think the weight of testimony is in I favor of the defendant. The probabilities are that the defendant and his assistant, both men of considerable experience, must have seen the necessity for cutting of the plaintiff had he called, as he alleged he did, and would either have operated upon him or sent him to the Hospital. There would be ample time between the 21st and the 25th for the arm to have presented the appearance which it did. It may perhaps hare been wiser of the defendant not to have taken the responsibility, but taking into consideration that his assistance was only sought after the failure of the plaintiff to obtain the services of a more qualified practitioner, and further that his treatment was pronounced by those be*st able to form an opinion as being correct and proper in the first instance, I think that he bad a right to consider himself competent to effect a perfect cure, and that he cannot be held responsible for the plaintiff's negligence in omitting to call upon him after the 21st March, and wbich Mgligenca I am of opinion wtfl'tbe c«U69 of the plaintiff's pain and inconvenience. I give judgment for defendant with costs.