CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1688, 15 October 1887, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expiessed by our correspondents, MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS. TO THS EDITOR. Sir, — I was raiber surprised on reading your artiole with the above heading this evening, to notice that yon gave bo many of the assertions of the plaintiff m the case Kennedy v Jones, and bo little of the defence- For example, one of the statements of plaintiff which yon quote, is that he paid her. It turns out that ahe took no money from him. A"s you give aome of theniylnga of thta most voracious deponent, M onael Kennedy, why not give them all. Should not the public know not only thac he charged Mrs Jones with putting bluestone on his lips, but alao with ripping op his lips with a knlf c, and that, she said he need, not pay any more, for she generally sent In her bill 1 When you devote twenty sentences to the damaging statements of plaintiff, it Been • rather one-sided to dispose of the defenoe, as you do, m a slDgle seDteace. It does not seem fair to the defendant, nor does it giro your readers any jast idea as to what the defence was, farther than a general denial of the allegations. Allow me, therefore, to tell them that the defence was that Mrs Jones advised Kennedy to go to Dr Maaneell for treatment, that he wentbaok to ber again as hedieiikid having to undergo an operation, and it waß only when he entreated her ' for God's cake' to do Bometblog for him that she gave him a harmless herbal ointment, whtoh he applied himself. She never used a knlfa to his lip. She used no blueatone, and nevor sent a bill to any one m her life. The obaracter of the plaintiffs care is further indicated by the testimony of hia one witness, Patrick Farrall. It consisted' m his saying that he remembered being at Mra Jones' house one day, and thought ahe asked him to look at plaintiff's lip, ' but he was not sure. On farther examlaa- I tion, this witness professed himself utterly unable to remember anything at all about the matter, and was ordered to Btand down Mrs Jjnes, who had been long and favorably known m Duneiin, was supported by four oredible witnesses, and the jury showed whom they believed by returning a verdict, after an absence of about a quarter of an hour, for- the defendant. Costa were allowed as against the plaintiff. It is quite true, aa you say, that any one suffering from oanoer on the lip Bhonld go to a medical practitioner. This wss what Mrs Jones urged Kennedy to do. But surely it is something approaching to "a grievouß miscarriage of justice " m drawing publio attention to each a case, to give such prominence to the unsupported statements of a station hand from up country, and to suppress all statements m defence of one to whom many are indebted for benefits received. Youra, etc, Fair Play. October 14, 1887. P.S. — From the way you have presented the matter it would appear as if the case bad been grettly aggravated by unskilled treatment, but for the defence we have the evidence cf Dr MaunselJ, who told Kennedy what the only true remedy was, i and farther that if nothing had been ' applied the oanoer would have spread to a considerable extent. The delay of four months would, of Itself, have necessitated a very extensive operation. It is evident that the plaintiff took the risk upon him■elf when he had obtained Dr Maiunaell'a opinion, and could have availed himself of the services of a skilful practitioner. [No doubt "Fair Play " is of opinion that he could have written a great deal better an artiole himself — perhaps so, bat he must not accuse as of unfair play. Our reason for giving the plaintiff's state* monts was to show, if it be a case of perjury, to what lengths person* will go to build up a oase whioh has no true foundation. It was unnecessary to repeat those when we said that the defendant m her evidence denied, on oath, all and singular these statements, and that her evidence was supplemented and m parts corroborated by other wltneeßes. We do not see how we conld well have put it more Btrongly m favor of the defendant, who we are pleased to learn is so highly esteemed m Dunedin, for the many benefits ahe haa conferred. —Ed. A. G. .{