Naumann v. Palmer.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6897, 8 February 1894, Page 4

Naumann v. Palmer.

This case was continued at the Hastings R.M. Court on Monday. The H.B. Herald report says :—

Naumann v. Palmer, claim for £100 damages tor injuries received whilst undergoing medical treatment.

W. J. Tyerman deposed that he had seen the room where plaintiff met with the injury, and understood the position m which plaintiff stood. It would not be a safe thing to put a mixture of ether and turpentine on a man's back under similar circumstances to those which surrounded the plaintiff. The witness entered fully into a scientific explanation of the properties of ether, and its various qualities and descriptions, and Baid that after contact with a man's body, its temperature being raised thereby, ether would be very highly inflammable. He considered it would be dangerous to use any Buch preparation m any parb of the room. The appearance of plaintiffs body, as described by Mrs Dickson was consistent with the idea that it had been enveloped m vapor, as it took very little sulphuric ether to produce a large volume of gas when raised to a temperature of 98£ degrees, the temperature of a man's body. [Some slight experiments were tried m Court showing the quickness of evaporation of ether.]

In answer to Mr Cornford the witness Baid that ether was more sensitive than mercury. The molecules evaporating from a man's hand were drawn off with greater rapidity, and therefore were more inflammable than the molecules drawn from a cold bottle.

Mr Comford explained that m his preflence an experiment had been tried upon Palmer, junior, with ether upon exactly similar circumstances as those occurring to the plaintiff, and that there had been no explosion resulting. Mr Cornford said he wished to test the value of expert evidence by experiment, which he did.

W. C. Linney, M.D., Hastings, deposed that he attended the plaintiff m DrFaulknor's absence. He corroborated the previous medical evidence, and said it was inexcusable to use ether m a room with a naked light m it. Mr Loughman said he had given notice to Palmer to produce the couch which was m the room at the time of the accident. He had discovered that the couch which was shown m Court when they visited the room was not the identical one that was there at the time of the accident, although they were led to infer, and he believed Mr Palmer said, that it was.

Mr Cornford said that Palmer had made a mistake. They admitted it. He had told Palmer to put the room m the same position as when the accident occurred, and ths>t Palmer having taken the old couch home had borrowed one from Mr Cassin. He (Mr Cornford) had been misled himself. Palmer did it to save trouble. Palmer had made a mistake m not telling the Court that it was not the original couch, but it was not a fatal mistake. Dr. Linney, re-examined, stated that he was present m the room when the examination of the couch was made, and he asked if it was the same couch, and someone said that it was. Mr Loughnan put m the deposition taken, by Sergeant Mitchell the day after the accident and said that that closed his case. Mr Cornford, having addressed the Court for the defence, gave a description of some experiments that had been tried with ether alone and with ether and spirits of turpentine mixed, upon young Palmer, and upon a piece of cardboard. The evidence was taken of defendant and his son, and of A. Hildreth. S. Alexander, S. Elliott, J. T. Cassin, and Sergeant Mitchell. The further hearing of the case was then adjourned till a date to be fixed, when counsel on both sides will address the Court.