HUNT V. SORLEY.
To the Editor. Sir, - Great indignation has been felt and expressed at the decision in the case of Hunt v. Sorley, It is well known that Di Sorley has been very successful in a number of cases that were given up by other doctors in Dunedin. Whether this has anything to do with the animus against him, and the desire to crush him manifested by some of his brethren, I cannot tell, but it looks very like it. I suppose most of your readers will have perused the evidence in the above case, and will have formed their own opinions with regard to ic. This doctor thinks this in favor of the plaintiff, the other that; this one would have treated in this way, that in another way ; whereas those in favor of defendant were Of one mind a fresh illustration of the old proverb about doctors differing. But what is most astonishing of all is, that the Resident Magistrate, who is not a medical man, decides at once against the defendant. What is still worse, it appears there is no appeal from such a decision. If this is the la V, then, I have no hesitation in saying it is a most unjust one, and the sooner it is remedied the better, is it to be borne with' that a Resident Magistrate might have a prejudice in favor of some professional men, and against another, and should have it in his power to crush him ? If this was the design of Dr Sorley’s enemies, I am happy to say they will be completely defeated. Instead of lowering him in the estimation of the public it will have the very opposite effect. (Jne whose wife has been benefited by Dr Sorley’s admirable skill when others could do nothing for her, as soon he heard of the decision in this case, wrote to say that he would pay the amount at once. It is pleasing to see that gratitude is not yet extinct among men. There is still another light in which this case should be viewed. Suppose you or I, sir, were to get a limb fractured, who are we, after this, to apply to? If doctors are liable to be summoned by their patients for doing their best to serve them, they will be very ebary of undertaking any case of the kind.— 1 am, &c.. Vox Populi. Dunedin, February 27.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740227.2.16.1
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3438, 27 February 1874, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
405HUNT V. SORLEY. Evening Star, Issue 3438, 27 February 1874, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.