INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXI, Issue 148, 23 June 1906, Page 2

INTERESTING CIVIL ACTION.

TREATMENT OF THE EYE. The ca6e in which Dr. Emilio Borghetti, eye specialist, sued James Reid, Carterton, farmer, for £88 43 for operations, attendances, etc., on the defendant's son Randall Reid, who had one of his eyes injured in January last by a blow from a piece of crockeryware, was again before Dr. A.. M' Arthur, HM,, in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon and evening. ' 'Sir. Gray appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Findlay lor the defendant. When we went t» press Mr. Findlay was delivering his opening address on behalf of defendant. -In the course of liia remarks he drew the attention of the court to the plaintiff, who had occupied a seat near him, and said : "J "don't know why Dr. JJorghetfri j 8 staring. so. hard at me._ He is supposed to have some magnetic Influence, and perhaps ho thinks he can exercise it on your- Worship and me. If he does think so, I din afraid he is very much mistaken." The plaintiff thereupon faced the bench. The first witness for tho defence was Maria Reid, mother of the patient. In j the course of her evidence she said that plaintiff, after treating the patient for a while, said he would take £50 for the I wholo course of treatment. Witness, through the agency of her son, communicated the terms of the agreement to the defendant. Subsequently plaintiff told defendant that he would not take JBSO. Defendant told him "Mrs. Iteid said you would do it for £50." The doctor replied, "I only bluffed her because she wan taking the boy away." The patient was then taken to another doctor. Dr. Webster, specialist in eye, ear, and I throat troubles, deposed that the boy was brought to him^on 11th May, when he gave an opinion' on the condition of ono of the boy's eyes. The eye at the time was what witness described as a quiet eye. There was a scar of a wound in the cornea 'to which the iris was attached. The iris was not inflamed, but the pupil was small, contracted, and apparently — as is usual in, such a case of adhesion — a drawing up to the corneal wound. There was also a small flake, apparently of lens matter, in the aqueous chamber, and, what appeared to him, the- remains of a cataract in the" pupil. The question presented to him was whether any treatment at all at that time was of use for tho benefit of the eye. Witness applied atrophine, and found that the pupil was only dilated in the port opposite to the corneal wound, and that the rest of the iris was in a state of nerfect immobility. Under the circumstances it was impossible for the pupil to dilate into a round pupil. Finding that the atrophine produced no more good than a slight dilation, which was immaterial, witness decided that the atrophine. was,. qnite, uncalled for. It was no good putting a drug. into the eyt which did no i good, and possibly might cause irritation. - Witness ' thereupon advised that ' ths eye for the time being had better •be left alone. gave the' patient a, little preparation' of boracic acid and cocaine, which was. a simple routine prescription, and did not see him again until 29th May. In a wound as described in this case^ — assuming that it was non-septic, and that the operation was completely successful, the eye would ordinarily be on a fair way towards recovery in three weekß. Witness went on to say that he had never received more than thirty guineas for treatment of a corneal wound and an adhesion of the iris. • Mr. Gray, wJien cross-examining witness, said : Your opinion was to do nothing to the eye. Witness: Quite so. if tfaere was any hope or prospect of saving the sight by energetic treatment you squelched any such idea. — I know what you are driving at. The suggestion is made that only a needling had to be done to make it a good eye. That is absolutely wrong. You do not agree with Drs. Martin, Young, and M'Gavin on that point? — No, I do not. And Dr. Webster is certainly right?— I do not need to be an Almighty to say that. The old adhesion haa never been freed from the cornea. So you say. Witness went on to repeat, in answer to counsel, that a simgje operation to get rid ol data Tact was not all that) was»nccesaary to restore eight when the boy came to him. ' Randal) Reid, me patient in question, deposed that he was 13 years of age last November. He injured b,Weye by getting & splintei of crockery in it whilst breaking the crockery wibn a hammer. Three days later he came to Wellington nnd wag taken first) to the surgeries of Drs. Mackenzie and Kendall, who were both out, then to Dr. Borghetti, who treated him as described by previous witnesses. Hia mother, after the second operation, asked the plaintiff if he would take £50 for treating witiness, otherwise she would take him away. Plaintiff and witness's mother had a conversation o» the subject, and tihe outcome of it was that plaintiff said he would take the £50. Witness's father «übsequently came to town and was about to make a parti payment to plaintiff when plaintiff said he was only bluffing Mrs. Keid-wheu he spoke about the £50. He then stated tlhat he would require £70, and if the matter went to court) he would ask for £100. James Reid, defendant in the case, gave similar evidence. Dr. Mackenzie, specialist for the eye, ear, and throat, deposed that he was at n. consultation with Dr». Borghetti, Martin, and Young, and came to the conclusion that the eye should not be taken oat. Dr. Borghetti vu of much the same opinion, but considered he had greater responsibility, being the doctor in charge of the case, and that was why he called a Consultation. Witness would not have treated the eye on tho course adopted by plaintiff. In the first operation the iris had not been entirely freed from the cornea. Had thai) been done the second operation would nob have been required. The boy was brought to witness after Dr. BorghettS had been treating him for some time, but .witness, for professional Teasons, did not take the Case in band. Had he done bo he would not at that Dime have performed another operation. He subsequently, At & consultation, advised the 'defendant to take the boy home, holding tho belief that) the sight might be improved at some future date. Dr. Borghetti had done a great deal of work to the injured eye and done it conscientiously, and his charges for' the work done were not excessive. Witness had different ideas and would not hay« worked on the same lines as the plaintiff. In one case of operation for freeing tins iris witness bad not charged more tlhtui twenty-five guineas. A second Operation to the boy was absolutely necessary. Witness had no rea&on to criticise the treatment adopted by Dr. Borghetti. He believed that tflio injured eye would yet uesist the boy in finding his way about the world, but he weuld nob bt able to work with it very much. Plaintiff, recalled, said he never told the defendant that he had "bluffed" Mrs. Reid. Counsel then addressed the court, and his Worship intimated at 10.46 p.m. thai) he would give his decision on Tuesday morning.