CHARLATANISM EXPOSED.

Evening Star, Issue 3175, 24 April 1873, Page 3

CHARLATANISM EXPOSED.

The case of Corry v. Solomon slioavs that dupes are still to be found by impudent charlatans. Solomon, it appears, represented himself as a qualified ski led oculist, optician, and what not, and Corry, believing his representations, consulted him. He had lost the sight of one eye long ago, and he was apparently alarmed about the other. The “qualified” oculist and optician, &c., exacted the payment of one guinea “ for consultation ” before he would examine the man’s eyes'at all. Corry’s evidence clearly shoAva the calibre of Solomon as a judge of human nature. “ Both my eyes,” he says, “ were slightly inflamed when I came here, aud I explained everything to defendant On examining my eyes be said it avus an extreme case, at the same time using some words 1 (lid not know the meaning of to describe it. . . . He said I was likely

to lose the sight of my right eye, if it Avas not skilfully treated. From tho stylo of his conversation, and the fact of his residing at tho Clarendon, 1 concluded that he Avas what he represented himself to be, and believed what he said. He informed mo that ho could restore the sight of my eye after first reducing the inflammation, but that his charge would be LOO. I told him I bad not so much money, and lie then said ho would do it for twenty guineas, but ultimately agreed to accept ten guineas for the cure.” The last-mentioned sum Avas paid, some ointment, pills, and lotion were prescribed and the result of their use Ayas that Corry found it necessary in the course of a few days to go to the Hospital. Solomon Avns taxed by Corry with his unskilled treatment, aud restitution was demanded: “He jeered at me, and Avhen 1 threatened to sue him ho said 1 might do as 1 liked.'’ iSueli is Curry’s exposure of his own weakness and credulity. When the civil action for damages was heard in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Solomon did not appear. He had, in fact, left Christchurch some days before, and it has been stated that he is “ Avantcd ” cm the criminal charge of obtaining money by false pretences. The medical witness called on Corry’s behalf, Dr PoavJl, referring to the medicines prescribed by Rolomoa, said: “1 have examined the ointment, and it ]s not a proper thine to qse for inflammation of the eye. It Avould rather aggrava e the inflammation than otherwise. In a deep-seated in 11 anmamation, its use Avould be serious. The lotion is a hannloi.B mixture, but 1 do not think it could do much good. 1 have seen the pills, which contain rhubarb, and 1 should imagine thorn to bo of an aperient character. The valueof the ointment, lotion, and pills, Avould certainly be under Ids. ... 1 think it quite likely that tho pain plaintiff was suffering from when ho came to the Hospital was aggravated by tho use of tho oiutmeut. , . .

The ointment was quite a wrong thing to use. There can be no doubt but that it would increase the inflammation. On this and Corry’s own evidence, the Bench gave judgment in his favor for the sum of L2oand costs, but Solomon has quitted the scene of his “skilled” labors, and his dupe will nrobably have to console himself with Ihc reflection that ho has not altogether lost his eyesight in addition to his money .—Lyttelton Times.