A CURIOUS CASE.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4011, 30 May 1884, Page 4

A CURIOUS CASE.

[by telegraph.] Auckland, This day. A case was heard on Wednesday in tho District Court, the result of which cronted such surprise that many who were presnt indulged in somewhat immoderate laughter. The facts are short. A foreign seaman (a Greek) named Eg-go brought an action to recover £100 from John Webster, master of tho barque St. Lawrence, for improper medical treatment of an injury sustained by plaintiff at sea, the injury being the result of an accident The plaintiff fell against some casks, and appeared to have been thrown down the forehateh, so causing his shoulder to be hurt. The plaintiff said that his shoulder was "out," and the captain treated him for dislocation according to the directions of a medical work published by "authority," and issued to shipmasters with the sanction of the Board of Trade. When Eggo reached Auckland hewaa examined by some medical men (six weeks after the accident), who said there never had been any dislocation, but that the man had been improperly treated by excessive pulling of the limb, which injured the cartilage that protects the joint. This pulling was done by the captain's order, but it was in accordance with the treatment prescribed by the Shipmaster's Medical Guide, the work above referred to. There was a host of doctors in attendance to give evidence, unci they as usual differed. The case was tried by aj- r : of four. It was alleged for the defence, and not denied, that the captain did everything possible for the relief of the injured man. It was not insinuated that there was any breach of duty, carelessness, or indifference. The facts alleged by the plaintiff were not denied by the defence, butitwas urged that they were entirely consistent with the utmost care and solicitude on the part of tho captain for a seaman who described his hurt from his own feeling at the time and his previous experience.

His Honor in his summing up put the caso plainly. (1.) If there was no breach of duty and no negligence by the captain in regard to this occurrence there was no liability. (2.) If there was no dislocation of the arm the treatment was right and proper. (3.) If there was no dislocation how far was the captain absolved from responsibility if the sufferer himself insisted that there was dislocation ?

The jury gave the verdict for the plaintiff for £100, costs £13 11s. The local Press condemn tho verdict as utterly absurd, and say that masters of vessels if mulcted in this fashion will shrink from tho responsibility of treating injured seamen on boa rd their ships.