DENTIST AND PATIENT.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 58, 2 December 1907, Page 5

DENTIST AND PATIENT.

MORE EVIDENCE IN THE DUNEDIN CASE. (DY TELEGItAFH —SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT,) Cunecim, November 30. Tho Supreme Court Was again occupied to-day with tiio further'hearing of the. case of Harrison v'. the Loudon Dental Company claim £2000. damages for alleged negligent and unskilful extraction of teeth. Un account of the criminal sittings intervening, only one witness was examined. This was Dr. Hunter, who was called for the defence. Ho said lie had examined plaintiff 011 November 20, before .Drs. Evans, Delatour, and M'Donald.' Plaintiff told him lie had sufferc dmueh from colds, which occurred at no spccial season. He complained that iiis throat gave him much trouble, that ho had a continuous cough, and that he coughed up much disagreeablo ' matter. Hoarse sounds could be heard in the right clavicle in the Grst space above the ribs. There was a good air untry to the lungs. The throat from the back of the tongue to the voice box was inflamed. There was 110 paralysis of the vocal chords, but the larnyx and other parts of the .throat showed signs of injury, from the appearances presented he would usupect tho development of tuberculosis in the larynx. "From general indications heconsidered that plaintiff showed the commonest signs of incipient tuberculosis. The fact that' plaintiff was a- felt hat-maker would assist in the development of tuberculosis. He examined plaintiff's sputum and' found tubercle bacilli. Dr. De.lantour and Dr. Newlands also examined this sputum, and confirmed his/finding that plaintiff had tuberculosis. Cal'coreous- deposits in the lungs were manifestations of • disease, and suclr substances, being of a mineral nature, couldj iiicV; be' penetrated by light. The symptoms ho had observed were 'not consistent with 'the story of a foreign substance. 011 his lung, and could r.ot be accounted for in tliat way. If a year ago a pieco of tooth had gone into plaintiff's lung, the proper courso would ■ have • been to immediately operate for'its removal. The system of examination for tuberculosis adopted by . the medical men who had given evidence for the defence was not in his opinion conclusive. Tubercle bacilli might easily' have existed, and been missed by the.m. Witness had had little experience in tho uso of nasal inhalers in connection with tho administration of anaesthetics, but ho saw 110 objection to the instrument produced and stated to have been used hy defendants in the case referred to. Tho method of extracting teeth adopted by defendants should be safe, provided tho assistants engaged were competent. If they were incompetent, there was danger of an overdose . Such troubles as sore throat and loss of voice were, common after tho use of anaesthetics. Plaintiff, at the. time of tho operation, had tubercular organisms in his lungs, and the strain and irritation of the anaosthctic stirred theso into activity. In cross-examination, Dr. Hnnter said that tho sudden cough which ,soized plaintiff at tho time of the operation,' and which remained chronic, was duo to laryngitis. Ho found in plaintiff absolutely no symptoms that might give rise to the. theory'that a foreign substance was on his lung. It was possible that a foreign substanec was there. Tho Court adjourned till Tuesday.