RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3428, 16 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, February 16. (Before A. 0. Strode, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness.— Robert James Archer, deaf and dumb, was charged with this offence. It appeared that accused, though drunk, was very quiet, and on bis intimating to his Worship big regret at having got “ bight,” was discharged.—Mary Oithel, who stated that she came from Nascby, having been in the lock-up since Saturday, was discharged. £iitp Desertion.— Charles Eason was charged with desertion from the Warwick, and admitted being absent without leave. Constable Anderson said ho met accused on the Caversham road last night, and asked him where he was going. Accused replied, “to see some friends at Caversham,” but went on past that place, on which witness arrested him. Accused then admitted that he had deserted, and said he had all bis clothes ashore. (Jn the application of SubInspector Mallard, accused was remanded till to-morrow morning, it being stated that several other sailors had left the same ship. CIVIL OASES. Low v. Larkins.—Claim LI 17s, for saddlery work done. —Mr M ‘Xeay for defendant —Plaintiff admitted that defendant, in ordering the work, stated that it was for one Borman Wood, for whom he was foreman.—Bi s Worship nonsuited, stating that he must sue Weod. Hunt v. Sorley.—This case continued this morning, the] first witness examined by Mr Stout being Edward William Alexander, duly qualified medical practitioner: 1 was called in on May 24 to see plaintiff, and found a good deal of swelling ami stiffness about the ankle; the foot turned out, the outer edge upwards ; there had been a fracture of the fibula about three or four inches above the end ; and a db placement of the lower uid of the tibia, or in other words a dislocation. This ought to have been discovered during the treatment of the case, the toot being so much out of line. Plaintiff is not likely to have more use of his leg than he has now. To Mr Smith: I did not find a fracture in the tibia, hut there way have been one. I have read Mr Hocken’s evidence, and do not agree with his

statement, although a small piece of boiui might have been torn off I cannot explain why we medical men should differ, but there is only a slight difference between our views of the character of this injury. There is a difference between a fracture and a dislocaturn, but not very great. as to the severity. In this case the difference wou'd be slight; being so near the ankle the injuries Would be almost equal in severity. I examined the limb about ten days ago, and the indicia were the same as I found on May 24. I think that a competent medical man should have discovered a fracture of the fibula, even if the limb were swollen and erysipelas had set in. If it is a fact that a medical man recently arrived in England differs as to the distance the foot is oat I should not be surprised, though I cannot see why he should be able to measure belter than men who have been here twelve or more years. lam not surprised at any difference of opinion amongst medical men out here, as I have seen so much of it.—To Mr Stout : Supposing erysipelas had set in, the prescriptions for liniments produced are not such as I should have given. To Mr Smith : Liniments are never used for erysipelas.—Edward Mulmc, duly qualified medical practitioner: I examined plaintiffs leg iu May last, and also about ten days ago. On the first occasion jthere was a swelling about the ankle joint; the lower end of the fibula joined the upper end at an angle; the outer edge of the foot turned up, and the inner edge down; the spine of the tibia had an inclination inwards ; and the heel projected more than it should do. The last 1 showed plaintiff to be the case by placing it from the calf of the leg to the heel. My opinion was that the small bone of the log was broken, and his foot dislocated backwards, as the foot could not be in such a position without the fibula being fractured. Plaintiff was also kv.ockknee d as regards the right leg, this being the result of the injury. I think that the fracture should have been discovered by a competent medical man. When I formed my opinion I thought plaintiff had not been attended by a medical man, but had been treating the limb itself. The liniments produced could not have been intended for erysipelas. Plaintiff will bo always lame • to a certain extent, but time may make a difference. ToMrSmith; I coal I tell the tibia was fractured, by its being “slewed,” to nae a nautical expression. Ihcre was nothing in plaintiff's appearance to make me think scrofulous action had taken place. This injury is a very common accident, and goes by the name of “ Pott's fracture," when the position of the foot is alwavs the same, and as plaintiff’s was—Plaintiff, recalled ; The prescriptions produced are what I received from defendant. This closed the ease for plaintiff, and Mr Stout said he wished to correct an error in the report of the Evening Star of Saturday last. He (Mr Stout) had not said, as was there stated, that “Dra Young rr Colo expressed any opinion on the plaintiff’s leg to the plaintiff.Mr Smith then called defendant, Henry Sorley, duly qualified medical practitioner : On January • 22, 1873, I attended plaintiff to examine his ie 8- found the right ankle very much swollen, _ and plaintiff complained of very great pain. Ihere was no displacement of the foot. Mr Isaacs and others were pro- ?• dl ’ examined for fracture of the tibia, in the usual mode: that is, by twisting the upper part of the leg with one hand and below the ankle with the other. The movement of the lower part was continuous with the upper part, showing that the bone was entire. I then examined for the ankle joint, bringing the too on the same level as the knee-cap, and found no distortion and therefore no dislocation, and the foot was not locked. As there was no fracture or dislocation, I pronounced it a and prescribed lotions and liniments. With a sprain the ligaments are sometimes tom, with inflammation and infiltration of tluid(semni) into the surrounding tissues. ’ iT 6 j swelled more and more, and about 1 the third day erysipelas set in, increasing in intensity, and assuming a malignant form. Vessications broke out, and this continued for about a mouth, when the character of the malady changed, and it assumed an eruptive form. The pain was so great that I could not apply any pressure.’ I then gradually diminished my attendance, hut the swelling ha I not subsided. About the month of May I gave up the case, plaintiff having given me a gre it deal of impudence. I have not seen his leg since, as plaintiff declined to let me do. so, but I have no reason to change my opinion. [Witness here asked Mr Stout if he would be allowed to examine plaintiff’s *®S* a ? d Stout acceded; but, Mr Smith thinking no benefit would accrue to witness from it, the examination was not made, ] To.. Mr Stout: I never discovered any displacement of the foot, and it was not displaced when I gave up the care. 1 found thickening of the integuments of the leg, but did not examiue very searchingly, as there was a fear of increasing the inflammation, when amputation would have been necessary. I did not particularly lo ik to see if the fibula was out of line after the first nights I have tried . plaintiff standing, but did not notice he was knock-kneed or that the foot was turned outwards. If Dr Hulme swore that was the case Ido not believe it still, or else plaintiff must have been thrown off a horse or had another accident since. If the heel were out, of position it would show that there was either a fracture or a dislocation. The eversion of the foot, the turning up of the outer edge and down of the inner edge, and the knock-kneed, would be the signs of “Pott’s fracture”; but such could not be the case if the fracture of tbe tibia was for* M-ard. In the latter case the heel would never reach the ground. The liniments produced are mine. Some of them should not be used if erysipelas is present, and I can’t recoiled; what I prescribed them for. Perhaps some other part of the leg required sti« raulating liniments. The erysipelas spread to the top of the calf and in front of the leg. 1 dm not prescribe for scrofula, but only for swelling of the leg and tho inflammation caused by the erysipelas. Enlargement of the bone, penostrial thickening, infiltration of scrofulous matter, are known without any outward sign. I think T told plaintiff he had erysipelas, and remember telling him it was a simple stniu. I did not see the good of getting another medical man, as for some reason they object to meet me. .1 do not know the cause, but such is the case. To ««t> i*? j : don 't believe the signs of 8 fracture ” were to be seen in plaintin s case.—Barnard Isaac, chemist, had assisted surgeons in surgical operations, and was present when Dr. Sorley treated Hunt’s leg on the night of January 22, 1873. Observed that the toe was in a straight line with the knee, an i did not observe any displacement. Witness had some conversation with Hunt about three weeks ago, when he said that he was getting on well with his leg now ; that he felt it getting right, but every three or four days or so he felt it pain him. A Mr Lazarus, who was present, remarked that it was perhaps the weather, and Hunt remarked that it was very likely so. He walked sharply and briskly -much better than witness had seen him walk for some time previous.—Alexander Young, MD described the appearance of Hunt’s foot! when he examined it on the 7th inst. There was no displacement of the bones. There was certainly no sign of dislocation when he saw the leg ; nor any evidence of fracture of the tibia. Did not know whether or not there had been displacement of the fibula, but sawno signs of it. It was quite possible that there might be fracture of the fibula, but sp ong as there was no displacement, of.i tfce tibia (he fracture might escape detec*

turn by tbe most competent medical men. It would not be possible, even ,at this distance of time, for Hunt to put his heel to the ground, as he did, if there had been any displacement of the libia. [Left sitting ]