INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 136, 9 June 1906, Page 2

INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION.

TREATMENT OF THE EYE. Treatment of an injured eye was the subject of a civil action commenced before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., in tfhe Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when Dr. Emilio Borghetti, eye specialist, of Wellington, sued James Reid, Carberton, farmer, for £88 4s for operations, attendance, etc., on the, defendant's son, Randall Reid. Mr. Gray, for plaintiff, stafed that the patient, a small boy, m6t with an accident in January last,, when he had his eye injured by a blow from a piece of crockeryware. Subsequently an operatidn was performed by the plainti£, Dr. Young administering the chloroform. The boy remained in plaintiiff's care until the 7th May, and in the interval 6f three months was seen every day with the exception of seven days. On Ist February a consultation was held by the plaintiff, with Dps. Martin, Youn^f, and Mackenzie, ib having been an important matteT as to whether or not Hhe eye should be removed. In affections of this character the sound eye was likely to be atfeeted by sympathetic inflammation resulting from ths injured eye. That affection, once begun, was incurable and might eventually lead to totial blindness. Drg. Martin and Young advised the removal of the injured eye, but Dr. Mackenzie, an eye specialist, was of opinion thati there was a chance of saving it. The members of the defendant's family were anxious that the removal of the eye should be avoided if possible, and plaintiff was of opinion that although there was a risk in not removing the eye there was more than a reasonable -chance of saving it without) injury to the other eye. He accepted that risk and responsibility and did not remove it. The treatmenfi included two' major and three minor operations. During the course of treatment a complication ensued and a eatlaraet formed on the injured eye. That cataract, however, was a necessary consequence of what had cone before and ■was in itself oontpajratively unimportant. Plaintiff continued tlhe treatment with, .as he all«fed, highly beneficial results. The defendant seemed to think that the course of treatment was too prolonged and objected to the plaintiff's proposal that no matter how long tfhe treatment might last his charge would not exceed 100 guineas. Eventually he removed the boy from the plaintiff's care and placed him under the treatment of Dr. Webster. Plaintiff alleged that when the boy was taken from his care tho eye was progressing ip. a way with which he was entirely satisfied and that if his treatment had been confirmed the results would have been highly beneficial. Defendant paid into, court £50 of the amount claimed, but under the circumstances plaintiff declined to accept it. Plaintiff, in the course of his evidence, said that his charges were on the lowest scale. At 6 o'clock the case was adjourned until Thursday next. There are a large number of doctors to be called as wit>nesses, and the hearing of the case is likely to occupy a considerable time. The defendant was represented by Dr. Findlay.