The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1887. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1687, 14 October 1887, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna est Veritas et Prævalebit. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1887. MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS-

A singular case, showing the paramount importance of persons suffering from, apparently, even trivial ailments consulting only duly qualified medical practitioners was tried m the Supreme Court, Dunedin,on Monday before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a jury of four. Tne case was Kennedy v Jones. Claim damages. Mr Stanford for plaintiff, Mr Haggi.t for defendant. In opening the case Mr Stanto rd said that "it was one of an unusutal character. The main feature was simply that the plaintiff was an Irish workman, a station hand. In November last he came to town to get a sore lip cured, and on the advice of friends he went to the defendant, a Mrs Jones, resident at St Clair, who undertakes medical cases from time to time, and undertook to cure him positively. After spending four months under her care, m attempting a cure, he was reduced to such a condition that he had to go to the hospital and have the floor of bis mouth and part of the lower jaw removed by a severe operation. He dow sued for damages for injuries inflicied on him by defendant's unskilful treatment." The evidence adduced averred that the plaintiff, a station hand at Mount Ida, who had a sore lip, went to Dunedin about 21st Movembe.r to see what was the matter. Acting on the advice of friends he went to a Mcs Jones who " undertook medical cases from time to time" and asked her tc look at his lip. She did so, and said she would cure his lip, but she would like him to go to a doctor and see what he would say and that he must return m the evening. The plaintiff consulted Dn. Maunsell I and went back to Mrs Jones and told her that Dr Maunsell said he had an ulcerated cancer on the lip, and that he ought to have it removed as quickly as possible before it could touch the bone on the tongue. Mrs Jones said " there was nothing of the sort m his lip and she would tell the doctor the same." She said if she would let him put a plaster on his lip and leave it on from that day (Monday) till Saturday she would then tell him if it was a cancer or not. He told her if she could not cure him to have nothing to do with him to which she replied "on my oath I will cure ypu." She put on the plaster and he paid her. He left the plaster on till the Saturday and then went to her. She took it off and he found that the lip of the pimple had been broken and that a little matter was existing. Mrs Jones then said " Now I told you I'd cure you and I'll take you mmy charge." The plaintiff was under her charge for four months going to her every other day and described the treatment. The last time he went she told him he was not getting well at all, that he was suffering from an virulent ulcer and that she would lose £100 on him and take him to Melbourne and get him cured there. He then left, her and went to Dr,

Roberts at the hospital where he underwent an operatioo. Dr. Maunsell's evidence went to show that when he first saw the plaintiff on examination he found that he had a small epithehal j cancer about the size of a three-penny bit on the lower lip. He told the plaintiff that he shonld not delay a moment but have it removed at once. It would have been but a slight operation, it would have left just a small scar. He performed an operation on him m the hospital m March. The whole lip had ia the mean time been ulcerated away and the cancer had eaten into the bone. The whole of the ulcerated mass had to be removed with part of the lower jaw and part of the floor of the mouth. Dr Roberts m his evidence stated that the effect of applying bluestone (the alleged remecy applied by defendant) to the plaintiffs lips m November would have been to irritate the cancer and cause it to grow. The defence was a denial on oath of all and singular, the plantiffs statementsby thedefendant, and m her evidence was supplemented and part corroborated by othei witnesses, The learned Judge having explaind the law bearing on the case told the jury that the question really lay between the credibility of the plaintiff and defendant. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Now there is evidently m this case either wilful perjury or a grievous miscarriage of justice. We refer to it because we learn that cases of cancer m the lip are by no means uncommon, and we trust that it will act as a warning to any who may be suffering from "a sore lip " to at once consult a duly qualified medical practioners, and not on any account to have recourse to unlicensed practitioners.