HUNT V. SORLEY.

Evening Star, Issue 3516, 1 June 1874, Page 3

HUNT V. SORLEY.

To the Editor, Sir, —Would you do me the kindness to insert the following letter in your widelycirculated paper. It was written in answer to an attack made by Dr. Hulme on me, in the ‘Otago Daily Times,’ and I think that journal ought to have admitted my reply—which is as follows : I am surprised Dr Hulme should again have revived the subject of Hunt’s leg. Dr. Hulme says, ‘.‘all the medical witnesses for the plaintiff positively stated that Hunt’s leg had been broken, and the foot dislocated.” Dr. Hocken said on oath that both bones of Hunt’s leg were broken, the upper fragment of the large bone uniting with the lower fragment at an angle. Dr. Bakewell denied this; be said the larger bone was dislocated entire, hut would require to examine the leg over again before E renouncing an opinion on the smaller bone; e also stated on oath that Dr. Hocken was wrong. Dr Hulme said the larger bone was dislocated, and the inner angle of that bone broken and left behind. Dr. Alexander said the inner ankle was entire and had gone the larger bone opt of its place. On peing fequeSted to repohcile the discrepancy between Drs. Bakewell and Hocken,' ho replied that it did not signify. No wonder the magistrate did not sum up; had he attempted to do so ,even on the contradictory evidences of the prosecution alone, he would in my opinion, have been compelled to have dismissed the case. I bat Dr. Hulme cannot be considered a superior or more expe ,surgeon than many of his professional brethreir~tlre—above trial, fou». ther with a case I was called to yesterday, sufficiently demonstrate. A Mrs i enton, of George street, requested me to see her husband, who had been hurt and removed to the hospital for treatment eight months ago. Unfortunately I could hold out no enoour agement. 1 found the astragalus (the arch bone of the foot) displaced, and projecting almost through the skin. Now, if this injury had been of such a character as Mr Benton said it was represented to him to be, namely, a dislocation with fracture at the joint, the foot might have been put in position at the time ; but it was not so, it was simply a displacement of the astragalus; and when the doctor discovered it (if he did) and fonnd it could not be reduced, he ought to have abstained from assuring Mr Kenton —as Mr Renton says he did—that the injury had been rectified, and that after a time be would, with practice in walking, recover the use of his foot. Mr Renton cannot even stand without great pain, nor can he move across the room without the use of crutches. Of course he is not able to work, nor is it at all probable he will be able to do so for the remainder of his life.—l am, &c , Henry Mobley, M.D. Dunedin, June 1.