RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5661, 22 May 1879, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, May 21. (Before T. A. Mausford, Esq,, E.M.) His Worship delivered the following judgments : WATSON V. MONTEITH. In this case the plaintiff seeks to recover the sum of £BO, for damages alleged to have been sustained through the unskilful treatment by the defendant of the plaintiff’s hand. The plaintiff having injured his hand through the bursting of a lemonade bottle, and having failed in procuring the services of a legally qualified sur"eon, went to the defendant, a chemist, in Manners-street, who for many years was connected with the Wellington Hospital, and who, according to the evidence of Dr. Johnston, the surgeon-superintendent of the Hospital, attended to many such minor surgical operations as were required to be performed upon the plaintiff with his entire approval. All the medical witnesses agree that the treatment in the first instance was correct, and as far as I can gather from the evidence, the unskilful treatment, if any, arose from not causing incisions to be made when it became apparent that matter was increasing ; but I think I am correct in concluding from the medical testi-' mony that cutting, in the first instance, may not have been, and probably was not necessary, but that a person seeing the wound daily would know when it would be proper and right to out to release the accumulated matter. If therefore the treatment in the first instance was correct, the only question to be decided is, whether the plaintiff, supposing him to have had the opportunity of examining the wound day by day, neglected to incise the arm when an accumulation of matter rendered such an operation necessary. The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital on March 25. The accident occurred ou the 18th. The plaintiff stated that he attended daily at the defendant’s up to his admission to the hospital, and if I could believe this statement I should award very substantial damages, because there can be no doubt that on the day he went to the hospital, if he had been receiving daily treatment he had been grossly neglected, and the person guilty of spoil neglect should be made to suffer. From the evidence of Mr. Fitz Gerald, the defendant’s assistant, who was for some time dresser at St. Thomas’s Hospital, London, and who was considered qualified to be sent to this colony in charge of emigrants, it may, I think, be assumed that, though not a legally qualified medical practitioner under our colonial Act, yet that he was fully qualified to attend to such a minor operation as was required iu the present instance. Mr. Fitz Gerald stated that the last time he saw the plaintiff was on the 21st, and produced the day-book corroborating his statement; and though some attempt was made to confirm the plaintiff that he called upon the defendant after that day, I am inclined on this point to think the weight of testimony is in favor of the defendant. The probabilities are that the defendant 1 and his assistant, both men of considerable experience, must have seen the necessity for cutting of the plaintiff had he called, as he alleged he did, and would either have operated upon him or sent him to the hospital. There would be ample time between the 21at and the 25th for the arm to have presented the appearance which it did. It may perhaps have been wiser of the defendant not to have taken the responsibility, but taking into consideration that his assistance was only sought after the failure of the plaintiff to obtain the services of a more qualified practitioner, and further, that his treatment was pronounced by those best able to form an opinion as being correct and proper in the first instance, I think that he had a right to consider himself competent to effect a perfect cure, and that he cannot be held responsible for the plaintiff’s negligence in omitting to call upon him after the 21st March, and which negligence I am of opinion was the cause of the plaintiff’s pain and inconvenience. I give judgment for defendant, with costs. STYLES V. JTLODGHLIN. His Worship said this was a very curious case. It had been before the Court for two years. He gave judgment as follows : “ The evidence of James Wheeler, taken at Napier, and which was tacitly admitted by both sides, should govern my decision. I give judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, £3, and costs.”

CIVIL CASES. In the following cases his Worship gave judgment for plaintiffs for the amount claimed and costs :—Lyon v. Kersey, £24 13s. 6d. ; Holland v. Woodhouse, £4 14s. 10d.; Tnatiu v. Simmonds, £24 Is. 6d.; Waters v. Bills, £2 17s. ; Pownall v. Manson, £25 ; Greaves v. Adams, £l2 3s. 3d. ; Archer v. Carbell, £23 3s. ; defendant was ordered to pay by instalments of £5 a week, or eight weeks’ imprisonment. Staples v. Plimpton, £27 18s. lOd. ; defendant was ordered to pay £lO within fourteen days, and the balance a month afterwards, or four weeks’ imprisonment. Sloane v. Sheppard, £2 Bs. 6d. ; ordered to pay in fourteen days, or seven days’ imprisonment. Russell v. Fiider.—Claim, £ll, for work done and building material supplied. Mr. Allan appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. Schwabe v. Pascoe.—Claim, £l9 165., as expenses in connection with making certain specifications for additions to the Imperial Hotel, in Cuba-street. Mr. Fitz Gerald appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Ollivier for the defendant. His Worship gave judgment for £lO 10s., and £1 9s. 6d. for advertising. Shukberg v. Captain and Owners of the s.s. Napier.--Claim, £l6, for wages and wrongful dismissal. This case came before the Court on Monday. The defendant did not appear, and according to plaintiff’s statement his Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff. Later on in the day Mr. Ollivier, who had been engaged at the Supreme Court, appeared and asked for a re-Rearing, which was granted. Captain Fisk now stated that the plaintiff refused duty, and was ordered ashore. His Worship reserved judgment, but intimated to defendant that it would have been better for him had he brought the man on to Wellington and then preferred a charge against him for refusal of duty, instead of taking the law into his own hands.