INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION. TREATMENT OF THE EYE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 141, 15 June 1906, Page 2

INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION. TREATMENT OF THE EYE.

The civil action concerning treatment of .in injury to a lad's eye was stnl before Dr. A. M'Arthur, S.M., after we went to press yesterday afternoon. The plaintiff was Dr. Enjilio Borghefcti, eye specialist, Wellington, and the defendant James Reid, Oarterton, farmer, father of the lad ip question- The claim was for £88 4s for operations, attendances, etc., on the lad. V The defendant paid £50 into court, bat plaintiff declined to accept it. Mr. Gray appeared for pkintifl, and Mr. D. M. Findlay for the defendant. Dr. Morghetti, examined further, stated that had he known there was any adhesion of the lens his opinion would have been for taking the eye out. The class of accident tho boy sustained did not ftive rise to a greater percentage than 5 per cent, of sympathetic inflammation setting in. When the boy left him there was no sign of the iris adhering to the lens. All that was then wrong with the boy was a cataract, which witness was waiting to remove. It was advisable to leave an eye in the head of a glowing boy, even supposing it was blind. If it was removed, the head did nofc develop symetrically, owing to the want of pressure of the eyeb.ill in the cavity. Dr. Wm. Young deposed that he was not an eye specialist, but had taken special courses with lefeience to the eye. He was present at the operation to the lad, and saw the plaintiff sterilise his instruments. In witness's opinion, the operation was properly perlormed. Witness subsequently attended a consultation with plaintiff, and Dre. Martin and Mackenzie. Witness recommended the removal of the injured eye, because sympathetic inflammation sets in in the other eye, and both eyes become blind. Had his own boy been the patient he would have had the eye removed. There was just a chance of saving the injured eye. The father of the boy was present, and witness thought the father said he wbhed the eye saved if there was the least possible chance. Dr. Borghetti said he thought he could save- the eye, but did not endeavour to influence the parents. In consequence of the father's wishes it was decided to leave the eye after putting before him what they* all thought. In describing the injury to the right eye witness said there was inflamation to the iris, fear of light, and a scar on the cornea, and irritation in the left eye. As far as witness could judge, the plaintiff's treatment was right and proper. Witness was a member of the New Zealand branch of the British Medical Association. He had seen plaintiffs charges, and was of opinion that they were rif{ht and proper. Dr. D. J. M' Gavin gave similar evidence, explaining, however, that he was not at the consultation on the case. The treatment given by plaintiff was, in witness's opinion, correct. Mr. Gray: He was suffering from irido-cyclitis traumatica, was he not? Witness, in reply, said the symptoms as described to him indicated that that was the trouble. Mr. Gray : It is an injury to the eye, is it not? Witness: Ye^_ Mr. Findlay : Ishould say it was an injury to the jaw. His Worship : It would be a very sad thing if such a thing occurred to lawyers (Laughter.) Continuing, witness said the plaintiff's charges were reasonable for a specialist. Dr. Martin e«id that ' he was at the original consultation, and that the defendant was anxious his boy's „ eye i should not be taken out. The treatment given by the plaintiff was proper, and his charges of fifteen guineas for each of two major operations, two guineas for each of three minor operations, and ten shillings and sixpence for daily attendances' of one hour at a time upon the lad, were reasomble. The case at this rtige was adjourned until 2.15 on the 22nd inst.