THE COURTS. – YESTERDAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7339, 11 October 1887, Page 2

THE COURTS. - YESTERDAY.

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and

a jury of four.)

Kennedy v. Jones. Claim LSOO, damages. Mr Stanford appeared for plaintiff; Mr Haggitt for defendant. The following concludes our report of the case:— ...

Mr Stanford said that he had another witness to call in Mrs Ryan, of Anderston, Roslyn, but she was indisposed, and he handed in a certificate from Dr Martin to the effect that she was unable to attend the Court. In opening the case for the defendant, Mr Haggitt said that his client denied having sent plaintiff to Dr Maunsell in the first instance. Mrs Jones would also deny, as set forth in the statement of defence, all of plaintiff's allegations. She would contradict plaintiffs unsupported statement that bluestone was applied to his lip; the only thing she would do for him was, at his earnest request, to give him a harmless herbal ointment, and at the same time she urged on plaintiff that nothing but an operation could do him any good. He would not, however, go to the doctor to get it done, and it was not until Mrs Jones had gone on a visit to the North Island that he went to the Hospital. Defendant, also, though she saw plaintiff many times and was greatly bothered by him, never took any money from him—he never offered her any, she never asked for any, and his statement that she had said that she sent in her bills after curing her patients was utterly false. Mrs Jones would swear that never in the whole course of her existence had she sent a bill in to any of her patients. The learned counsel continued that if a person chose, in the face of advice, to go to an unlicensed and unauthorised practitioner, instead of to a qualified medical practitioner —if he chose to act on the advice of an unprofessional practitioner—he did so at his own risk. It was only in the case of a person professing to effect marvellous cures that one could be held liable at all. The fact was that plaintiff had a horror of the operation that Dr Maunsell had told him was necessary, and preferred to use some ointment to cure his disease.

Thomas Liddle, farmer at Purakanui, stated that he used to call every alternate Saturday at defendant's place with butter. He saw plaintiff there on a Saturday in November last, and seeing him with_ a handkerchief round his mouth, asked him what was the matter. Plaintiff replied that he had a cancer, and that Dr Maunsell had told him that he must have his lip taken off, but *he did not care to have this done, and had therefore come to Mrs Jones to see what she could do. WitneßS looked at his lip and saw that it was all red and swollen up the size of his hand. A fortnight later he saw plaintiff again at Mrs Jones's. He was putting some ointment on his lip. Witness and he left by the same tram-car, and plaintiff, in reply to a question, said that his lip was getting on first rate. To Mr Stanford : The lump on plaintiff's lip, when witness saw it in November, was : the size of half an egg. Minnie Dykes, niece of defendant, stated that she saw plaintiff on the first day that i he oalled. The witness fiddle was there at the time. Plaintiff said that he wanted to see Mrs Jones, and witness heard him say to the latter: " For God's sake, take me in hand !" Witness was sent for a pot of green ointment that Mrs Jones kept made up. He afterwards called several times, and sometimes Mrs Jones would not see him. Marion Donaldson stated that she was at Mrs Jones's the first time that plaintiff called, and she heard him say that he had been to Dr Maunsell. To Mr Stanford: Witness never saw any Milestone at defendant's house, and had never told anyone that she had. Mrs Jones had treated her, and had done so effectively. Elizabeth Harris Jones, wife of John Pugh Jones, stated that she had occasionally treated spnie people for slight ailments, and had been pretty successful—so far so as to bring down on her head the jealousy of certain members of the medical profession. The first time that plaintiff saw her Mr Jones was present. Plaintiff said that he had a sore lip, and that he had been the previous evening to pr Maunsell, who had told him that there was cancer, and that he was t.o come bg.ck the following day to have it off. Witness advised him to go and do so, but lie begged her to give "him some ointment to try and heal his lip instead of having it off. Witness hesifcated about giving him any, but at last gave hjm some simple herbal ointment. Tliere was no bluestone in it. She did not say it would oure him, but that he could try it. She did not put a plaster on his lip at all. He called several times, and she examined his lip. She never tojd him £ho ointment was doing him good, or thai aha Vfffjld pcre him. She never told him to go back' to 'frr Maunsell. _ He used to call once a week or ohue a sor£- ] night—not every other* day. She never gave him anything but the green ointye.ewt. She never ground bluestone on the t'ib'le ai)d it pa his lip; he used to ptft the giptpjent' on hp ljp himself. Siie never used a knife to his lip on any occasion. He never paid her a penny on any occasion, and never asked him for any money. She never told him that |-,er practise was to send in her bill after the patient was never sent in a bill to anyone. She never told hjm that she would Jose LIOO over him and take him to Melbourne—uhe was sure she could not see why she should take him to Melbourne. She wa3 not attending him for a month OP tiil-as weeks before she went to the North Island. &he rrver had a cross word with him. She saiif km a^in in June - He called ahel s»id thai? he hftd the operation, and some friends had persnadetf him to "pull" her because he had baen Sj#*fiV recl - so much. She aßked him if she oould baW do#£ more for him if he had been heir brother, and fi* B<M *h?.t shc cou,d not. He then shook hands ana went away. She never took a farthing from him.' To Mr Stanford: Witness sometimes treated hey patients in this liberal manner. She had been practising for over twenty years. She knew it was omw? yhen she saw his lip. She'never told him to go to s, doctor, although she knew she could not 'cure,him—ite ha« been'--to a doctor himself. She often sent her patients t° doctors. On the first'day she' gave plaintiff fto pilfer, fo#fc sent him away.'saying'he 'had better ■have Kiiß I' 6 off, as the" doctor had said. Jfe came ■baolcthe following' day,"and sHe then gaye hijp some ointment on a f&Q. Siie Beyer }}iji4 &PY bluestone >n her Jhoiise or among her druge. Jhe cancer' did'pot ge.t any worse between Jjoyemhor Q,W Marchit was just the game all the time. John Pugh Jones, husband of defendant, said that he was present when plaintiff first called. He said that he had a cancer, aud that Dr Maunsell had told him he should have it cut out. Mfs Jones said that if Dr Maunsell pronounced it oanee* ho should go Jjad[c ap4 have if cut out. He said : '«' #ci: sa|:e, jta&e pje jn hand)'as J don't like to go »»4er JtJje oj>.era#on '#£ having it ciit out." He wanted some oiptment, Jones would not give him any, and fee weni away without. He saw plaintiff %er,e several times afterwards. He never saw him pay Mrs Jones any money, or offer her any. Me knpw she was not in the habit of taking nioney, because she was on her peril for taking roopey for "mending " anybody. fc Mr Stanford.: JjCrs Jones did not charge for lie? services, nor did sjie Jfcaie money from any of he? patjepts, so far as fie knew". It was a fact that siic hg,d last m<iKti? mortgaged her property to witness for L1,46U Witness did not know that she obtained that property with money arising from hor practice. He gave fee? money for the maintenance of the house, and, being an economical woman, she saved money out of it." After .counsel on Jwth sides had addressed the Court, " '• " >■ His Hosar said the case turned upon t\}3 point whether the jury hejieved the account given by the plaintiff or that (jiven by the defendant and supplemented by the evidence ,»f other witnesses. If the plaintiff's story were true, it appeared to him that, as the law Btofld, it would hardly be possible to avoid 1 finding a verdict for him. The law wibja reference .to $e case was this: that if any person, whether licensed or unlicensed, assumed to practice medicine, andijridertoak . for reward the treatment of any person, then the person who so assumed to practise piedjcine or undertoook treatment was bound to bring to such treatment the reasonable care and skill necessary for the purpose of the treatment undertaken. Further, if such reasonable earS and skill were not brought, or if through the wanl of such reasonable skill and care—that was, through ignorance or negligence—an injury was inflicted, such ; person, whether a licensed practitioner or not was liable to the person who had ■ suffered by such negligence. If the jury i believed that the defendant had rendered i herself liable on the view of the law he had < I aid down, then they would have to consider < what damages the plaintiff was entitled to .1

recover. But if the defendant's story was true, there was no case against her. The question really lay between the credibility of the plaintiff and the defendant. The jury, after retiring for a quarter of en hour, returned a verdict for the defendant. Costs were allowed as against the plaintiff on the scale provided for according to thej amount claimed, and witnesses' expenses and disbursements. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.) E. Cook v. W. J. Wilson.-Claim, L2 6a 6d, on a judgment summons. Mr Mouafc appeared for the plaintiff.—There was no appearance of the defendant, and an order was made for the payment of the amount by October 15, in default fourteen days' impr'sonment. R. Sprott v. J. Holmes.—Claim, L 8 12s 6d, for a cow and foal. Mr Milne appeared for the plaintiff.—After evidence, judgment was given for the amount claimed, with costs. Keaßt and M'Carthy v. J. R. Bryant.— Claim, L2O 6s, for beer supplied. Mr Stout appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr Stuart for the defendant.—Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for LI 2 8s and costs.