WAIT V. COLLIS.

Oamaru Mail, Volume IV, Issue 1319, 22 October 1880, Page 2

WAIT V. COLLIS.

The hearing o,f this pases was resumed at the Resident Magistrate's Court today. !£t will be remembered that the case was adjourned from lasfc week to allow his Worship to {JopgideF H paint raised by ]\sr. .The point was disallowed, and Mr.- Newton said that, with all deference to his Worship's ruling, he still held that he was right. He would, however, now close his case, but . should occasion arise he would ask leave to call rebutting evidence. Mr. Hislop addressed the Bench, and commented on Dr. Wait's evidence, during which he said that it to be regretted that the had not been brought P.n or five years ago, as witnessness could then have been produced who had since left the district, and the circumsta'nces would have been fresh in their minds. He called Dr. Wait, who deposed that he ordered defendant rest, hot fomentations, apd liniment. He did not s t e§ fomentations defendant had not had ' prqpgc attendance. He was sure he said ■ that defendant should have had better attendance. Witness had treated him ; simply fo,r contusion, produced by a bad fall, "Qoijtusjon, technically, does not include frafifcure. Mo piasters of any kind were applied to defendant, The contusion took the course that oontusions 1 usually do, becoming black in a few days, and caused and shortness. When Dr. tie Lautour measured the-leg he (witness) did not agree with him that there was shortness. This was when Dr. de Lautour was called in for : consultation. Shortening is caused by the wasting of the bone, and witness considered the shortness in this c&se was the : result of the tjoncutsion, defendant being in a delicate state of health. The consultation with' Dr. de Lautour took place at the request of Collis. They met in Collis' room, but witness could not say what the conversation was. They were quite friendly throughout and up to to-day. He (witness) remembered Dr. de Lautour telling him that he was going to do something to Collis, and asking hint to gq with him, but he declined to do so, because he disapproved of it. Dr. de Lautour took the case out of his hands, but he did not remember speaking to Collis about the matter. He did not like taking notioe of unprofessional conduct if he could help it. He did not remember if Collis, after the examination with Dr. de Lautour, ever expressed his belief that his leg was broken. In cases of contusion, the patient would experience great pain and inability to stand. If he made up his mind to bear the pain, be might stand upon his leg, but the leg could not bear its fair share of the weight of the body. He thought he recommended tho application of a galvanic battery. He did not remember that it caused swelling though it might have caused pain. At this point ail adjournment for lunch took place. On resuming, Pr, Wftifc was examined by Mr. Newton. He said he had been practising as a physician and surgeon since 1853, and had practised at Home for about nine or ten years. His practice at Home and here was general and medical. He had, been through a course of training in the Manchester Itqyal His diplomas' of qualification were that he was a member of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, licentiate of the faculty of physicians and surgeons of Glaggow, and licentiate of midwifery of Glasgow. He had treated a case of fracture of the neck of the femur. The patient wag a lady resident in Oamaru, now dead. He discovered the nature of her injuries. This was about 15 or 16 years ago. Another medical man had been consulted in that case. Iu treating the defendant he had had regard to his knowledge of defendant's previous state of health. He knew from defendant's own statements that he had been a sufferer from chronic rheumatism. Galvanism would be a proper remedy to apply for chronic rheumati'sn in connection with contusion, ftfter a time, but not immediately af f er the accident. In defendant's case, he was treating for contusion, which would include from the muscles down to the joint. There might be contusion of the bone along with the muscles, if the violence was strong enough to produce it, but the contusion would not include the bone, extending only to the covering of the bone. In saying he -treated the fendant for contusion, he meant contusion extending to the covering of the bone. In his opinion, th; -e was no fracture. The symptoms resulting from contusion and fracture wore very similar, and difficult to diagnose. He did not believe that he advised Collis to move about. The treatment in inter-capsular fracture was to keep the patient in bed for two or three weeks until the pain and tenderness abate, after which the patient should get up and sit in a chair, anc| aftowards begin to move abot)(i pn grutches. lie advised aftpr a time, to, mqve about on crutches, In the case of contusion, long I confinement to bed would not be acU visable, and might result seriously to the patient, Ag a mattev- of fact, it was not the custom to measure- the limb to asoerr tain if there was fracture ; it was generally taken for granted that shortening would be detected by examination. . The witness thought that, if there had been shortening immediately after the accident, he would from his examination have been able to detect it. He said there certainly was not, in Collis 3 case, shortening im- " mediately after the accident. There might; be cases where the surgical ligament

was not torn through, where shortening would not take place for some time after an accident. Simple was a more usual fracture than impacted, and rriore easy to diagnose. A case of pure impacture of the femur was of rare occurrence, and where the fracture in inter-capsular fracture was firmly impacted it was difficult to tell whether the case was one of fracture or mere contusion. In cases of inter-capsular fracture of the neck of the femur there would not be more than one in fifty. It, was a result of old age. The amount of shortening which Dr. de Lau- j tour professed to have discovered in Collis* leg on measuring it was half an inch. The professional etiquette was that, where a consultation of two medical men took place, the patient should be under the treatment of the medical man who first saw the case. Dr. de Lautour therefore had no right to put a plaster of Paris bandage upon Collis' leg except with his (witness',) consent. Collis had never told him (witness) that he was not treating him properly. The fact that a man, after falling off a horse, walked a few yards and then fell from a sensation of pain and loss of power, wasi not a conclusive proof of fracture. |t was a kind of temporary paralyses. Shortening of a limb six weeljs after an accident was not conclusive evidence of fracture. The symptoms of fracture were shortening, eversion of the foot, crepitus, loss of power, flattening of the limb, and generally lessening of the arc described by the trochanter-major wbw rotated. The only symptom of fracture that was visible in Colli§' case was eversion of the limb, b,ut this was only of the ordinary kind noticeable in oases of' aocident. In cases of ir\toiHoap9ul&r fracture there iwere up. visybie indications of injury to the soft joints of the hip, but in the extracapsular there were considerable signs of injury. Ho had no recollection of the administration of chloroform to the defendant while he (witness) was present. The chief reason upon which he (witness) founded his conclusion that Collis was suffering from contusion sn& not fracture was that from the, ftrsjij he. could move his | leg. Whe.u patient was suffering from chronic j;3ji.e,uipatism it became more'diffii cult to diagnose the nature of an injury, i To Mr. Hislop Bje (witness) did not jknow that Qollis risen out of bed I within two op three weeks after the acci- , dent, I iVanciis Henry Townsend gave evidence | a3 to defendant meeting with an accident I about five years ago. He went to assist j him, and found him in the place where he | fell. He (witness) put his arms round him and assisted him to his feet. The 1 defendant stood leaning on witness' shoulder. -Another person tl*en oame, and, assisted by them, defendant tried to walk a few but could not do so. They him into Mo wat's store. saw him several times afterwards. To Mr. Newton : He (witness) saw the defendant fall; it was caused by the horse bucking. Defendant fell off at the side and apparently came down upon lua leg, and then fell upon his sid,9was apparently trying to, get off when thrown. XXejjep&aat stood up, leaning on my but I cannot say whether jhe had his weight upon one Or both feet. Defendant walked two or three steps with the assistance of witness and Mr. Hickey. David Hay remembered seeing Collis aftev his accident, and assisted to carry him from Mr. Mowat's bed to his own room. Witness saw. him nearly every day afterwards lying in his bed. Defendant borrowed a pair of crutches from Mr. Middleton Anderson shortly afterwards,, but he could not say how long afterwards. ;3S&ts&uld not remember* whether or not he saw Collis using them. The further hearing of the case was then adjourned until Monday next.