THE DENTIST AND HIS PATIENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6571, 8 December 1882, Page 5

THE DENTIST AND HIS PATIENT.

[BY TELKfiKAPII.—I'IIKSS ASSOCIATION.] CiiiiisTCHUßCii, Thursday. Dsn of the most amusing cases heard at the Courtsforsome time was :icl;iini for £16 Uspreferred to-day by Mr. Seymour, dentist, against a Mr. Prints,for a full set of false teeth. At the commencement of the case, counsel asked that the defendant might produce the set of artificial teeth so that experts examine them. The set of teeth was produced by Mr. Seymour, and the case then proceeded. The facts were briefly that the defendant's wife had been affected with some nervous complaint, and it was deemed desirable by the doctor attending her to replace the natural teeth she had by artificial ones. Mr. Seymour extracted the teeth to tho number of nineteen, and six weeks after took a mould ot the lady's guins, from which he made a set of artificial teeth. These, according to Mrs. Pring's statement, did not answer their purpose. She could not eat with them without great difficulty. They made her gums bleed, and she could hardly speak while they were in her mouth. Mr. Seymouraltered the size and adjustment of the teeth, but still they failed to give satisfaction, and were returned to the plaintiff by the defendant's wife, who refused to allow Mr. Seymour to make further alterations in them. Messrs. Sykes and Irving, dental surgeons, deposed that the set was a good specimen of mechanical dentistry, and the cost very reasonable, but on the lady being taken to a private room and the teeth adjusted to her mouth, it was found by these two last-named dentists, who by the way were called for the defence, that a perfect fit had not been secured, and in fact that they were of opinion that the gums had not yet sufficiently healed to enable a case for a permanent set of teeth to be made. His Worship thought that while Mrs. Pring had not acted altogether as she should in refusing to allow Mr. Seymour to alter the teeth a second time, he considered the best course would now be to allow the defendant a sufßcient time to have tho necessary alterations made by another dentißt. Judgment would be for plaintiff for £9 6s, deducting £7 10s for the reason stated, the teeth to be handed over to the defendant.