WAIT V. COLLIS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 19 October 1880, Page 2

WAIT V. COLLIS.

A case of some interest to the medical; profession and the public generally was heard at the Resident Magistrate's Court to-day, before T. W. Parker, R. M. The Court was crowded, and the whole of the medical men in Oamaru were present. The case in question was one brought by Dr. Wait against Mr. E. Collis for the sum of L 9 18s 6d, for professional attendance from October, 1875, to January, 1876. '

Mr. Newton appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hislop for the defendant. ' Before proceeding with the case, Mr. Newton asked his Worship to decide as to the course of procedure in the case. He held that first the plaintiff should establish his claim, and that afterwards, should the attempt to set up a defence of bad practice be made, the plaintiff should have the right of adducing evidence in reply. Mr. Hislop submitted that Mr. Newton should not raise the question of rebutting evidence until it was necessary to produce that evidence. He would therefore at that point decline to argue the question as- to the admissibility of rebutting evidence. Mr. Newton, as a right, asked his Worship to give a ruling upon the matter. After some further argument,

His Worship said that the application was exceptional, and he was asked to make an exceptional order, altering the mode of practice. He did not care to make an innovation upon , the established practice of the Court unless the whole Bar concurred in the step, when the practice would become general. Otherwise the praotice of the Court might become liable to frequent and inconvenient alterations. Still he thought it would be of advantage to adopt tho practice suggested by Mr. Newton, as it would greatly simplify matters and be of advantage to clients as tending to save expense, which he always favored ; but he could not see his way to make an exception to the former practice unless the oourse was adopted permanently as the practice of the Court.

Mr. Newton said that unless the point was decided he would be placed in a most embarrassing position. He might simply call the evidence necessary to establish the claim, and it was quite possible that evidence might aftervyards be adduced by the defendant in proof of malpractice. The plaintiff might be taken by surprise, and it would be unfair to the plaintiff not to-permit him to answer that evidence. Mr. Hislop replied, saying that the question, of admissibility of rebutting evidence should be argued when it was found necessary to adduo© auoh evidence. After some further argument, His Woyahip sai'd that if Mr. Newton his application before closing his case he would be prepared to give an answer, but he would require to take a little time to: consider it.

Mr. Newton then briefly opened the case, and oalled

Herbert Wait, son of the plaintiff, jrho deposed that he had applied to the defendant for payment of an account due to his father. Defendant said money was very hard to get in, and he did not know when he would be able to pay the account. He made a second application some time afterwards, and the defendant then said he would not pay the account. The defendant alao s&id that he had not been property treated. Ib Mr. Hislop : Said he did not present the account on the first occasion that he applied for payment, but thought he mentioned the amount. .

Dr. Wait, the plaintiff, stated that from the beginning of October, 1875, to .January, 1876, he had at the defendants request attended him professionally, and supplied him with the medicines mentioned in the bili of particulars. The charges were the usual professional charges in Oamaru. No i portion of the account, save 17s 6d paid | into Court had been paid. To Mr. Hislop : He had not attended the defendant in 1874, but he knew from conversations with the defendant that he was suffering from chronic rhuematism. He was on the date mentioned in the claim called in to attend the defendant, who was lying on a bed. He (the plaintiff) was that the defendant had had, a fall from his horse. .He could not. re- ' member anything particular that he was told with regard to the fall. He knew that the defendant walked to his room afterwards. Ha did not think he should have c\eemed. it necessary to make any inquiries at the time' as to the defendant's previous state of health. iHe examined the defendant. He felt, moved, and examined the leg generally to find out the nature of the accident. He found contusion of the hip. He could not say from what direction the blow came that caused the contusion. He examined the bone, but did not find anything wrong with it. He probably took hold of the leg by the knee, and lifted it up. and down and in and out, but not xevy muoh, as the defendant complained of great pain. He could not swear that he moved the leg by the foot, He eame to. the conplusion that the clefendat was suffering from contusion of the hip joint, andL that there was nothing wrong with the bone. Ho continued to treat the defendant accordingly, but it was probable that ho the leg daily. The result to. anyone falling on his hip or foot most likely be a severe collision, of the joint and bruising of the muscles. It might also result in fracture of the upper bone of the thigh' joint, but cases of this kind were very rare.. Old people were liable to such fractures, but not robust young men. He examined Collis to ascertain if there was an extra-eapauhir fracture. He. was prepared, io, say positively that there was. no. extracapsular fracture, and he did not bejievo there was an inter--1 capsular fraotnre. If a person fell upon his feet, and there was a fracture, he would expect it to v be inter-capsular, but if the violence was vevy great, the fracture might be extra-capsntar. He believed cases had occi\rmd where people sustaining a fraotupe of the neck of the thigh-bone had able to walk a short distas.qe—that was in cases of impacted i tyraoture, " He heard a noise made by t,he movement of. the leg to lead him ta suppose that one ;of the bonea. waa broken. Collis certainly did not c,aK his attention to a noise, and did not say that his leg was broken.; He considered that what lie diet was sufficient to ascertain whether the bone was broken. ,It was not 1 necessary lor the fracture of .the hip to be impacted to make the patient to walk it was posbut very for persons to walk with a' fraotnre of the of the thigh. The indi r Rations of fraoturo, that wouVJ be vould be shattering o| th,e limb, crepitus, evasion of ths foot, tirid, rately, inversion of the foot. Defendant suffered teg

stated that the pah> was id his hip; '.The' best method of discovering crepitus was to take the leg by the ki>eo and move it' about. He had not heard that the approved method might be different, and he had not read of it. It was not easy to discover crepitus, and many experienced surgeons might fail to do so. Ho agreed that it was necessary to stand the patient up or measure the legs to ascertain whether there was a fracture, bnt he did not do so. Shortening of the limb would be immediate, but extreme shortening i n inter-'capsular fracture would be a work of time. Shortening in extra-capsular fracture would be very much greater. Collia' foot was naturally lying over in a resting position, and he know that this was the result of the injuries, but ho could not tell from it that theft) was a fracture. He would not care to stand a patient upright to ascertain if there was a fracture. He recognised Sir James Fergusson as an authority upon the subject, but did not remember if he recommended the course. Mr; Newton then renewed his -tion for '"his Worship's ruling as to the cdurse of proceedure. ■ An adjournment until a quarter past. twQ o'clock then took place. On resuming, his Worship intimated that he would take time to consider Mr_ Newton's application, and the case warn adjourned.