SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 522, 1 June 1909, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

APPLICATIONS FOR DISCHARGES. Among several applications for discharges which camo bofore Mr. Justice, Coopor yesterday, was that of John Morris Schepero, Wellington. - 1 ' ~ rMr./.O'lieary,' who . appeared for bankrupt, A' •: .mentioned •• 'that. the Official Assignee had ; v:. recommended. that the-application ', he -held over until the'next sitting rif , '.the^C<rart,; . • ■ Sis Honour adjourned the matter accordingly. ■ CARPENTER GRAFTED DISCHARGE. With respect to the application of .Owen Thomas Baigent, . carpenter, Lower Hutt, Mr. v M'Lean, .who appeared on behalf of the !\. . debtor, said/ that . lio,, understood that the Official Assigneo did' not: object to a dis- , charge ibeing granted.'> . His Honour (to counsel): Debtor will give ■.. .all information (asus his duty) to facilitatei ■ the winding up ;of the .estate?■ \ : - -Counsel: ; Ob, certainly. •; \. >. i His. Honour Upon that oondition the discharge is ; -granted.. ; . .. '. y '

DISCHARGE DEFERRED. On behalf of Ede Brothers (bankrupts), Mr. Von Haa6t pointed out that, although^certain' : . wages olaiis had . not "been paid,- there was .money ■, on ~hand to - meet them. 1 ' ; Tbo Official Assignoo said that an additional wages.olaim had been, received by him that; morning.; Thoro ■_•;would, he' thought, be sufficient money to pay them. His ■ Honour: I shall have to adjourn the application till /. next.' sitting. i\ .'

BANKRUPTCY DUE TO, MISFORTUNE. According to Mr. Dunn, who appeared in support of the application .of 'John Neil ltyder, the latter's .bankruptcy was, due to ''misfortune. A - majority of tho 'creditors • had intimated thaj; they would not oppose -, the grant of-a discharge. '. | ■ His Honour said that the Official Assignee . had reported • favourably. Thore would bo ,o substantial . dividend l ii} the estate. Debtor's?-wife would loso the wholo of the ■ money which, she had advanced to It' was a case in which ,a djschargo should be granted, and he.made an. order accordingly. UNFORTUNATE DEBTOR OBTAINS x DISCHARGE. , On, behalf of William Cecil Murray, it - was stated-by Mr. Cracroft Wilson that it was: owing -to ■ tho pressure, of ■ one creditor ; th^t.bankrapt.had: filed, and- his .statement .... showed him to bo really solvent. The Official Assignee,. who was not altogether; far", vourable to the .bankrupt,- had suggested ~ .that; debtor; .should."apply: for his:.dischargo 4t tho'current sittings. .. • ;• His Honour said ,that tho liabilities totalled £137. i Debtor was practically a working _ ; mnn, and* it ' Would :be impossiblo for . ; himj . under.- tho'. circumstances, to pay. ■ off , . an. instalment ,of .the debts :out of wages, ;; Upon, condition, that ; debtor's. wife' lodged a disclaimer in . .connection. with' the furniture, tho application .frould bo granted. .'

CLERK'S APPLICATION POSTPONED. /.;. An application, which had been held 'over " ' from last aitting, viz., that - of. William' Al Alley, clork, Wellington/ was thon men- . ' tioned. -■ ■ • • Mr. Levvoy, who appeared on behalf of debtor, said his client was unable to got regular work, and had a wife and family. Although adverse, the report of the Official :v. - Assignee .was ono that - might v. be ■ modified y upon the hearing_ of the circumstances. ■ His Honour'said that, the Official Assigned i had not recommended that , the discharge, be granted partly because -he'thought that it was his duty not to do so, and partly be-

cause certain creditors were dissatisfied. Consideration would .be postponed till noxteittings. • • •■'. -X REFUSED. When tho application of Conrad 0. A. Wilfor consideration, Mr. Hindinarsn, .who'represented debtor, stated 'that he did not think that the 'adverse., report.of the/ Official Assignee was' warranted.';lt; was based on the fact that debtor's wife had some property. His Honour; It appeafs to be based on a statement that debtor preferred hi 3 wife to his creditors. " 1 ' :: -■ Counsel: That is.why it is without: warrant. - ; ;• His Honour mentioned that tho liabilities in;.tho 'estate-totalled £3000; •; and ' debtor's statementthat'there would. be a 'surplus; had not turned out to bo correct. Counsel: It is I submit a case of hardship! His Honour: Ho appears to have gone into land building speculation .without any capital,: leaving his wife comfortably off. ; The" position was. this: if he succceded he'would make money :if he/failed -ho would lose nothing. Even his furniture, and' horse and; cart' bef-. longed to his wife. ' It would be better to adjourn, the. matter till next sittings.

"DEFEATING PETITIONING CREDITOR;" ' - Application ■ waa .made by Mr. T. J. M'Carthy:(who was represented by-Mr. John:'ston> to have' dj'rederick J. >Read, custodian' of 'rifle'range at I'olhill Gully (for whom Mr. Dunn appeared), adjudged bankrupt. :'; It appeared : ;that, petitioning' .creditor.- got judgment against debtor. When the: case came before the Court on a previous occasion debtorideclinedto adopt a suggestion that he should allow £33 which had been: paid into : Court to go to petitioning creditor. : S Mr.-. Dunn;.said .that'as the):assets in tho estate .had: been -sold " and- tho estate .was a. Bmall the Court should declare that-the execution of the deed of composition: waa npt an act of bankruptcy. '' His Honour said' that : he., would 'make an order adjudicating;- debtor a' bankrupt. - If the creditors agreed to compromise, tnei.matr ter they could • approve of the proposed composition, 'and the bankruptcy could be . annulled, t,The; deed of. composition was executed with' the deliberate-intention of defeating petitioning creditor. Throughout debtor had shown a desire to throw obstacles in his way. It would have been .better for debtorto have, accepted the proposal which was made to him. ■ 1 CLAIM OF £501 AGAINST DENTIST. . ■ j TWENTY-EIGHT TEETH AT A SITTING; v IS GAS THE CORRECT THING ? | A olaira brought by Rose Galvia, spinster, i "Wellington, against Thos. Edward • Knight Burgess,'dental; surgeon, Wellington, for £601. for alleged negligent'■ and unskilful 'treatment, came on; for hearing at tho Sir-' preme Court yesterday, before Mr.: Justice Cooper, and a special jury, of twelve. _ ' . • ■ For the,plaintiff Mr. A. Gray (with him Mr. C'Rcgan) and for tho defendant Mr. Skerrett, E.C.i (with him Mr'. Stout) appeared. ■ ■ ... . | Mr. .Gray, inopening, said ..that, it was alleged . against t defendant . that in removing ! twenty-eight, of plaintiff's-teeth- he had been .unskilful and negligent. Evidence of experts' would be called to show that any attempt to remove twenty-six or .twenty-eight teeth at one sittingunder the .influence of, gas was dangerous.- What was alleged against . do-. 1 fcnuant .was'that.he permitted a tooth to fall into plaintiff's traohea. It would have been blie easiest thing :in| the world ■ for defendant to havo 1 .told plaintiff that a medical man should be engaged to •administer. a heavier anaesthetic. If there had been a separate anaesthetist defendant would have had the whole of his time to attend to the operation. Defendant had chosen to administer the gas himself, and perform the whole work of extraction !alpne, his only assistant being a young lady.. The anaesthetic effects of gas wero tran&iontr-of an average - duration of

something like 40 or- 45' seconds. If what ho; had said was. correct,, it. would be-seen that an operator had to go protty hard to remove ;twenty-eight tooth oven under'tho best or conditions. ■ , Plaintiff, a young woman,, deposed , that the extraction, took place in May, 1907. Prior to :the administration of the gas, she tisked defendant to take some of the teeth ' out without gas as'-there were, she thought, too many for him to remove at one'sitting; but' defendant did not agree to her suggestion. She came, out of the gas before the last'two tooth had been .extracted. As she refused-to have a further dose of gas, defendant, took out the other -two teeth/without it. ' Upon the conclusion of the operation, she had a pam.on her left side and experienced si smothering feeling, and,.next day, there were additional symptoms. .On May 21, when she wont to pay .defendant an instalment of the money .duo by her, she told ; him that she had .consulted Dr. Cahill; owing tovthe pain m';hor chest, : an<l-the smothering feeling, Defendant,' who appeared to get a shock, made' no remark on the subject. Three days later, when she went, to have the impression for* artificial-, teeth .-.taken, she again mentioned that she was still going, to a doctor, but defendant did not the i subject. In June the sensation 'in tor chest had -decreased. Upon the. advice of her doctor, as her cough was very severe, she entered upon a long course of cod liver oil and milk food. In September she found it.necessary to take J. lighter position, and, in, November, she was too ill to do any work at all. When Dr. Cai:ill next saw her ho said, that her left lung ■was ' impaired,, 'and that , she would .have: to have, plenty of fresh, air,':JHer cough gradually became worse, and .towards the. end of Februaryj whilst : her sister was present, she coughed up a tooth. The pain in her loft side then gradually disappeared, and the cough also. ; - • V Mr; Skerrett: When you coughed up tho .tooth you kept it so that' you might bring an action against him?—" Yes.", ■ - ' .Why did you not inform defendant that you' intended to bring the action before October 12—eight months after the operation?—"l waited until :I returned to Wellington." ■ • - - - ■ ■

Was a friend of yours in the room when the gas was administered and the toetb drawn?—" Yes.''

Were you not cheerful when' you left the studio-slaughter)—X mean surgery P- 5 -"! had a messing feeling in the left 3iae.'"' ' Dr.-Cahill gave evidonco that a young woman, complaining- of symptoms similar to those described by plaintiff, called upon him on the dates mentioned by her. The nature of the symptoms which would arise, if a tooth'were inhaled, would depend where it jodged. It was extraordinary that, in passing, to tho lung, the tooth did not cause irritation. Is it'possible for a foreign-body to pass through , the larynx whilst . the- patient is under an anaesthetic without much- irritation?— Yes,, just possible., . Would a patient get' rid of her symptoms evon although the tooth remained in the lung?— That might happon. -■ „ ; Do you know of any instance wher'o a tooth entering the lung has induced tuberculosis? —No. ; What bad effects might tho entrance of a tooth ; into the lung set up?— Anything that injures tho. lung lowers the . vitality and 'would make ono more liable to contract disease. , . ( -. - . Cross-examined by Mr. Skerrett, witness started -that , ho- was one of the examiners in dentistry. Gas' was tho safest anaesthetic. One authority says that it is possible to keep a patient under gas for 10 minutes?— Yes, I have done so myself. ; It is possible, then, to remove a large number of teeth with ono dose of gas?— It all depends on the expertness of the operator, and how easily, or otherwise, the teeth can be drawn. - Could it be suggested that an operator who took out a whole set of teeth under gas was guilty of negligence?— No. Replying to further questions, witness said that the chances of a tooth, getting into tho trachea without any demonstration on the part of tho patient, wero ..very small. Tho tooth in question ■ might have lodged in tho

•trachea,' and.never havebeen in the lung at ? ' might be. only the fang of a' tooth, but-that would be very septic.. „i •1 stated that, upon examining plaintiff in October, he found that her lung was impaired. Another examination, during the current month, showed that she was completely ,well., The condition of the lung w S? n ,"° examined her was consistent with her story that a tooth had lodged there for some time. It was a very serious matter for anyone to inhale a tooth, and there would:be more risk if the tooth were'decayed. He would-not approve of. tho' ufee of gas for the extraction of twenty-eight teeth at one'sitting: As the work had to'be done so; quickly,' there was enormous risk of a tooth, being -inhaled. The ordinary expert dentist would never attempt to draw twentyeight teeth' without using ether.

CLAIM AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE. Additional evideiice was taken before Mr. Justice Cooper yesterday with respect to.tho action, between Mabel' Oarrington "Hutchinson and the Public, Trustee. . This was a claim that defendant, who is the trustee iai the estate of plaintiff's father (the late William Booth, Carterton) should make good losses incurred in connection with the. currying on of deceased's, business. According to defendant, the management of thd business had been prudent and careful, and such losses as took place were 'unavoidable. Tho further hearing of the case, was adjourned sine die. Mr. Geo. Hutchinson represented plaintiff, and Mr. Gray and Mr. Myers appeared for defendant. ~ ■; stage the Court.adjourned untii 10 o clock ■ this morning.