An Action for Damages.

Waikato Argus, Volume XXVI, Issue 4019, 24 February 1909, Page 3

An Action for Damages.

By Telegraph.—Press Association Wellington, Last Night.

The hearing of an interesting suit in which the plaintiff was Daisy Cook, spinster, Wellington, and the defendant was Henry Pearson Rawson, dentist, of Wellington, was commenced before Mr Justice Cooper and a special jury yesterday. Mr Young appeared on behalf of plaintiff and Mr Skerrett, K.C., and with him Mr Bunny for defendant. The statement of claim set forth that defendant was employed in July last by plaintiff for reward to extract her teeth. It was alleged that during the operation he so negligently and unskilfully treated plaintiff that a tooth was allowed to fall into her lung. Defendant, it was also asserted, failed to account for all the teeth that he had extracted, and to inform plaintiff that one was missing. Wherefore plaintiff, who had, it was stated, suffered great pain and been put to expense for medical attendance and comfort, claimed to recover from defendant the sum of £5Ol for damages.

Defendant, by his statement of defence, denied that he ever received any reward for his services. No tooth was, he continued, allowed to fall into plaintiff’s lung. It was untrue that he had been in any respect negligent or unskilful.

The evidence for the plaintiff set forth that payment was to be made as follows:—10s deposit and the balance during a period covering two years. Twenty one teeth were extracted. Dr. Anson administered the anaesthetic and as soon as the operation was over she said to defendant: “I hope you have not allowed me to swallow a tooth.” Defendant repli«d: “Oh no, you are only joking.” Some days later, as she was unwell, Dr. Bowerbank was called in. She was in great pain and had frequent bouts of coughing. On the following Friday she coughed up a tooth (which she produced), her father and mother being present.

Dr. Anson, the anaesthetist, and defendant both swore that during the operation every tooth was accounted for excepting one which flew out ot the forceps, and struck the right lens of his glasses so hard that they thought it was broken. The doctor said curiously enough those present did not hear this tooth fall to the floor. His impression at the time was that the tooth fell on to the patient’s dress. If the tooth had fallen into the lung he would have heard a cough, or observed some other maniiestation. It would have

been wrong to have stopped the operation and searched for the tooth, as the chances were a million to one that it would not have got back into the mouth.

Defendant contended that it was simply a 'case of blackmail. Under cross examination defendant said: His impression was that the tooth icoehetted after it struck Dr. Anson’s glasses. He never thought for one moment that the tooth re-entered plaintiff's mouth. There was a vague possibility that the tooth did go down her throat. When he heard that she was ill he did not send word to her about the tooth which struck Dr. Anson’s glasses, and was not seen afterwards.

The jury, by 11 to one, found in favour of the defendant, hut considered that the plaintiff was perfectly bona fide in bringing the action, and decided to make her a present of their fees.