£1000 DAMAGES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LIII, Issue 9480, 6 December 1907, Page 5

£1000 DAMAGES.

THE DUNEDIN DENTAL CASE.

A telegram yesterday announced that in the case of Harrison against thi London Dental, in ; which £2000 damages was claimed in connection with tooth-drawing, the jury fouiuia vefdict in favor of the plaintiff for £1000, the verdict, carrying costs considerably over £100. Counsel's ' addresses, which explain the case, are interesting: — Mr A. S. Adams, for the defence, saicl that plaintiff was undoubtedly.suffering from an illness, but natural sympathy on that score must not interfere with" justice. The matter was a grave one for defendants, for if the verdict went against them they would be barred from successful practice in. their business, and would be practically ostracised. Had there been negligence on the part of defendants, then he had nothing to urge upon .the jury, but he contended that there had been no negligence. That plaintiff did not for some time attribute negligence to defendants was shown by the fact that, subsequent to his own operation, plaintiff sent his own son to defendants to have his teeth extracted. In fact, Harrison's feeling until recently was that In had passed through a very serious experience in the London Dental Snrgery, and had survived it by reason of the skill and attention of Moses. Counsel went on to refer to advertisements by the plaintiff that had been introduced into the case, and said that these tactics were very unfair indeed, ir every man were to be held to the exact wording of his business" advert tisements, the Courts would be filled with cases arising out of these advertisements, and Court work ' would' largely degenerate into a species of comedy. The pivot, on which plaintiff's caso hung was the establishment of the presence of a tooth, or a fragment of a tooth, in his lung. AH plaintiff's symptoms pointed to the existence of tubercular disease. Plaintiff .had not established the presence of a foreign body, while the defence had established tbo fact that plaintiff had consumption. '. Mr Solomon, K.C., for the plaintiff, , said the defence had stated that plain-" tift had failed to show any valid evidence of the presence of a foreign body in the lung, but it would-be impossible Lo determine absolutely whether I 'there was a tooth inside plaintiff's , body v without an operation, which might possibly prove fatal, or until a post mor-. tern should have been held when he ciirae to die in due course/ The jury ha*T to he guided by thejjyideneg, and ( ho contended the presumption was J ux ff.vqr of the. presence of a foreign body. The fa,cts were tha| plajaxtiffLy went into this * establishment, . a. Sale „ and hearty man'; of forty-seven", Yfhb* ' ha<( never had an illness jaxejapt a se-, \ vcsaj; cold at'thirie^en^whosVfamilyhaS ' a:i absolutely bllan r rec'dra '"frpm"' a health poifij of view? and none" of whose ' , brothers -or' sisters* -had frcm**tuberculosis; or anything-fike ''it:^ TV was 'asked *to ' believe^ : that ; ' nlairtifF was in c6nsumptionv^and l tlia* l^' ,he had been suff eririg^fromv'iubferculosis^ " |f->: the pastii.thirteen'i'vtnonths s '/' but J plaintiff had not at all the appearance ' of that, as the jury. themselves could !' &cc. There' was evidence to show, riot only that during the operation at, the dentist's a tooth ' got ' down i 'plaintiff *n throat, but that'rMoses knew 1 it. ' " After>the decision ':6f the' jury was received it was announced that a new triai vould be applied for on the 1 rmand that the verdict was against . ti'i weight of evidence. -