Palmerston District Court.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 282, 4 June 1897, Page 2

Palmerston District Court.

0 I Thursday, June 3rd. ' (Before His Honor Judge Keltic.) Blake v. McCarthy. ! His Honor gave judgment in this case, ' vhich had been reserved from the hearng duriug the last sittiugs of the Court His Honor Raid that the jury had re ;urned a verdict on the various issues submitted to them after a trial lasting several days. Counsel for the plaintiff bad moved for the judgment of the 3ourt and in the alternative a new trial, rtsere was no motion on the part of the defendant for judgment. He considered that h was tho duty of the Court to Rive effect as far as possible to the intention 3f the juiy as directed by the verdict. He thought that the verdict of the jury was an intelligible one and amply ' warranted by tho evidence placed before them. They had found that Or McCarthy liad been guilty of neglect in bis treatment of the case after the 21st November, but had also considered that the septicaetuia through which deceased had died had not been contracted owiug to the troatmsnt accorded deceased by tbo doctor. Tho jury had alao fouud that the condition of tbo unfortunate woman after the 21st November was . largely brought about by tho treatment '' accorded her by Hamer, who bad been employed prior to that date by the plaiutiff. The jury had also fouud that the plaiutiff had permitted Hamcr to treat • the deceased after that date. They had ' also fouud that Mrs Blake had persist .' ently objected to Hamei's treatment, but ; notwithstanding that Blake had allowed \ Hauior to visit and treat Mrs Blake. The | jury thought that although there had : been neglect on the part of Dr McCarthy, ' Blake had contributed to tho neglect by ■ allowing Hamor to attend his wife, knowing at the same time that his wife strenuously objected to Hamer's presence, \ and this treatment had not been explained to the doctor, who was iguorant of the treatment that was being practised by Hamer. His Honor said he was quite satisfied that the continual pre- < aence of Hainor had greatly coniributod to keeping tho deceased ill. He con sidered the jury were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the cause of the poor woman's death was the joiot np«!c3t and treatment of Dr McCarthy and Hamer, and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to damages. The motion was dismissed. Mr Baker, counsel fur the plaintiff, pointed out that Hamer, in his attend auce, had beeu acting as the represents tive and assistant of Dr McCarthy, and he asked if Blake would have been doing his duty if he had refused to permit Hamer to see the patient. His Honor said that Hamer was in attendance, and he considered that his presence had a great deal to do with aggravating the illness. He bad always acted aa an irritant to Mrs Blake. He had full}' considered tho question of costs, and did not think the plaintiff was entitled to recover. Taking into consideration the fact that Blake bad gone behind tbe family doctor, and had called in Hamer and allowed him to treat the patient, alone disentitled him to costs. His after conduct also, when he knew of the objections of his wife to Hamer, and tbe objections of the nurses, who had begged and prayed Blake to remove Hamer. was quite sufficient to disentitle him to costs. His conduct had been most discreditable. Mr Hurloy, who received judgment on behalf of Mr Young, said that he took it that judgment was for tuo defendant. His Honor said there was no motion in that direction. He also refused to allow defendant; costs, the jury having found him guilty of neglect. There was no doubt he considered that the death of the unfortunate woman was due to the joint neglect of these three men. — Standard.