RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1061, 30 January 1883, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tew UK a—Monday, Jan. 29, 1882

(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.) separation order.

A separation and maintainance order (20s per week)waa granted to Mrs F. W. Bidham, on the application of Mr Wlihe, Mr Knubloy, who appeared for the defence, offering no objection. CIVIL CASES. M. Quinn v. J. McLaughlan. No appearance. Struck out. M. Hansen v. J. F. Douglas—Claim £1 5a 6d. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. A. W. Surridge v. Mclllwraith and Smith No appearance. Struck out. Henry WiPiam Campbell v. J. GrantClaim £2O 14s 6d. Mr Hamersley appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr White for the defendant. This was an action brought by Dr Campbell to recover the above sum for attendance on d-fendaut’s daughter who was hurt by a fall from a horse. Mr Hamersley applied for all the witnesses to be ordered out of Court.

Mr White objected to two medical witness being ordered out of Court. Afler some argument, Dr Hayes was ordered to leave the Court and Dr Hassell allowed to remain.

Henry William Campbell : I am a duly qualified medical practitioner. I am suing John Grant for medical attendance on his daughter. I attended a young girl who had fallen from a horse and had been dragged. I went to Sullivan’s, about ll miles from here. I found the patient lying on her back on the sofa of in a state of collapse but not unconscious. Mv attention was directed to her hip-bone. I saw a wound in the anterior part. There were some bruises on the side of the left thigh but no broken skin. There was some injury apparently from a Strain on the lower part of the abdomen. Her left side was slightly bmsed. Her bosom was also slightly bruised, I think from the stavs having been forcibly torn off her. There were some bruises on her hack. There was an angular wound extending ahont some 2i inches horizontally over the left eyebrow and down to the eyelid This formed a flap which had been drawn from the face, and had fallen over her eye. ‘ The Court then invited the witness to describe the injuries scientifically, and he did so in words of such length and tremendous sound that rendered the evidence incomprehensible to the uninitiated. Witness then continued: I attended her from the 3rd of September. Her mother attended, as nurse and deserves the greatest credit for the way she nursed her. I gave directions to her parents about the way they should look after her. She was very much improved on the 2nd of September. They asked me about the 17th or 19 h or August whether they could remove her and I said £ No.’ On the 2nd of September 1 told them she could be removed on the following Monday. I said I would be present if I could, but probably I could not as I was unwell. On Monday I was in bed ill with acute bronchitis. I di 1 not get out of my house for a month. On the 9th Grant came to me and to|d me the patient lad been moved. I gave hima large bottle of tonic medicine and some ointment. On the 15ch he came again, and he said she was progressing favorably. On the 20th he came and told me the"bed sores had a bad appearance, I gave him some things, and told him to get another medical opinion until I was able to go, which would be in a week. He did not come any more, and when I got well I found there was another doctor attending so I did not go any more. On the 2nd September the bed sores were very slight. I felt then that she would get on very well. Cross-examined by Mr White : The face and head was not cut a good deal. The wound had to be sewn up. The injured bone is known as the pelvis. It was torn from the joint, I had it washed. I washed it myself. I did not order the part not to be washed. I ordered her not to be moved. I found her lying on her back, and left her so. I had her position altered afterwards for washing. I told them a hard mattress was the best for her to sleep on, and they got one. Was presout when she was removed from a sofa to the bed. I do not know what part of I he world it came from, but I know I put a piece of a waterproof coat under the patient in the bed. I saw it removed, but I do not know bow often. Owing to the wounds on her back it was impossible that things under her should not adhere. She was ten days in bod before sores came on her back. After she was a fortnight on her back, I think I had her turned over on her right side to avoid bed sores. There were not many sores on her back. I could not say Inw long she was on her right side. I bad a cage put over her. I did not dress the sores as they did not require it. When I say dressing, I mean other than disinfecting washing. I washed parts to show how it was to be done on two or three occasions. 1 do not remember hiving said that there were bed sores on her back ; if I said so I be 1 - 7 to correct it, I think there were hud sores on both her right and left sides, but they were trivial It was at my suggestion that a hole was cut in the bed, The room became very offensive on occount of the discharges. I did not prevent them from calling in another doctor They agreed that there would be a difference of opinion between two doctors, I said let ‘ .nature take its course.’ I did not say, ‘I am not like others, I hare a soul to save, and I want

,id sd'o ihe girl.’ \\ lien the father emuc I on the 20th ho said ho saw muggo's in her I Mi<!o. I did not say maggots were the lift) of her.

James Roddick : lam a farmer. I know the girl Grant. 1 remember when she had the accident. Between a week and a fortnight after the accident occurred I went to Grant’s house, and Mr and Mrs Grant expressed themselves very well satisfied with the way the girl was going on, and with the treatment she was receivintr. About two months after, when Dr Mayes was treating her, Grant told me Dr Hayes’s treatment was quite the re verse of Dr Campbell's treatment, and that he believed Dr Campbell had treated her wrongly. Mr Hamersley ivas proceeding to ask further questions as to whether it was Dr Hayes who had suggested that Dr Campbell’s treatment was wrong, when lie was interrupted by Mr White, who objected to such questioning. Mr Hamersley then said te would leave the Court to infer who was the first to suggest that Dr Campbell’s treatment was a wrong one, Jessie Grant : 1 am the wife of the defendant,, and the mother of Elizabeth Grant. On the 3rd of August she met with an accident ; Dr Campbell attended her. He looked at her and told her to remain just as she was lying on her back on the sofa. He said she was not to be moved until ho came back again. He came back next morning. I insisted on having her changed. He hesitated. There was nothing but blankets covered with : blood and dirt about her. I asked him what kind of bed I’d put her upon. He asked what kind we had. Mr Sullivan s-nd < You can have a flax or a hair mattress, or a feather bed.’ Dr Campbell said, « We’ll give her a feather bed for quietness.’ The feathqr bed was got so as to fit a single bed. She was slipped from the sofa to the bed, and the doctor said ‘ By Jove, she could not be better.’ He did nothing more, He came next day, and said she was doing splendidly. I put bran poultices on myself. Her legs were kept apart by the doctor’s directions. He said 1 Let nature take its course. I believe in the patient being quiet.’ When she was removed from the sofa to the bed the lower part of her back was blistered. Mrs Golston said ‘lf there is nothing done for that girl, doctor, she will be frightful with bed sores.’ Mrs Golston got some lard on a cloth, but the doctor said the blisters would keep away influnmotion fmm the inside. It would not matter if she were blistered all over. Tne doctor never touched the wounds ; he never dressed them. He cold me to keep hi r clean. 1 think she uas kept a week on her back. She was then put on her left side again. Her back was in two large holes. Her back was skinned, and there was a discharge. She'was lying on her side for about a week. He then nrned her on the other side. There was a large hole in her left side. He made an iron cinre for her. She- was turned on her hac.< again. He appointed a day to come to set the bone. It was about <i fortnight after she received the .-.coident that lit* said ho would set (lie bona. There was a hole made in 'he bed. We were always wanting a second doctor, but lie said doctors were like lawyers, ‘they differed,’ a ,d if I wanted to save the girl I must, leave her to him. He said he was not like other doctors, ‘ lie had soul to be saved.’ When he came to set the bone he turned her on her right side, turned her lett foot up to her knee, and told her to remain therefor 14 days. On the 2nd Sept. I insisted upon the girl being mov»d or to take her home. I said I would not stay with her any longer. He said 1 had better stop a week or two longer ihan lose her. He afterwards said I’ll meet you on Monday to help you to shift your daughter. He did not come again. She was in a dreadful state on the 2Ctb, and her back and her side were quite alive with maggots. To Mr Haraeisley ; The girl was at Sullivan’s house. I did uot see the doctor the first day, Idid not see my daughter on the 3rd. On the 4th the doctor was gone betore I reached there. On the 4th Grant told me he had seen the doctor, and that I was to put bran poultices to her. I was present on the sth when the doctor camo. Mr Sullivan and Grant were present. He did nothing to the wounds. There were three chairs put up to the sofa. I believe when she was picked up her clothes had all been tom off her. I can’t say she had bruises on her when she was removed, John Grant: I arn defendant, and father of the girl. I heard of the accident on Thursday evening. The doctor had been there and gone before I reached there. She (the girl) was lying on the sofa. Next day the doctor said to me that in three or four weeks she would be all right again, it might be five weeks. He told me her life depended on bran poultices applied to her in the region of the abdomen. I told him on Saturday I wished to call in another doctor to consult in the matter. He told me doctors would never agree in one case. If another came he would maul her about, that he believed in allowing nature to take its own course, and that ho would give medicine to the girl to soothe her pains, but that lie did not believe in it. When I camo to Tcmuka on the 9tli I asked him to go to see her, but he did uot. The wi iness then described the nature of the injuries, and continued to say that the girl was removed from the sofa to the bed on Sunday. The doctor chose a feather bed. To Mr Hamersley: It was three or four days that the leg was put up. I was there night and day, and always when the doc or came. Dr Campbell told me lie was ill on the 9th. On Monday, the 4th, w r o put her on a stretcher and took her home in an express. I did not see the doctor from the 9th to the 20th. When I camo to Tcmuka I to d him about the maggots, but ho said they were the life of her. Mary Anno Goldston, who had frequently visited Miss Grant, gave evidence which in the main agreed with the other witnesses.

J, S Hayes: I am a duly qualified medi;al praTi"ioner, I was called in on the 20th of Sejtetnbcr to at'end the daughter of the defendant.

Ti e whole of the evide vo w.u Ihen read ov.v to Dr Hayes.

W toc-ss continual; I think leccher wo ild have b on hotter than bran poultices. Til" position in whioh t*>o p«ti nl was kept was not a proper one 1 he injury consisted of a separation of (he pelvis bone. I should have (nought ihe b nos together, and lot her head be low. There won d be no objection to ber lying on ber back. A feather bed was not suitable, because* h would be difficult to keep clean. It. i- myop'nion there should have been no bed Boreß> In cases where there are abrasions f the >uin I should expect sores, but they would not be proper bed

t-or s O:. tins tO h, wwn I vision t e pat, ten, she was piMly vre 1 c.vin-i nilh bed s area. 'Jlio hip-bone was rienud d of fl-'sh. That sore was 6 inches by 4 inches. On I ho lower part of the buck-bone there was a deep hole into which a h’n’s egg could hare been placed, and it communicated witti another fore under the skin. There was a bed sore on the other side also. The sores were discharging. I could not, say that the sotea were not the remit of bruises In the first place I should hare brought the bones inro their proper position some few days after the accident, when the inflammation had subsided. It would b" necessary to keep her very clean. I would not pul a pillow between her knees, but should nut ob ject to it. To Mr Hamersley: I do not think it would be rash for me to give an opinion. Mr Hamersley : Have you formed an opinion as to the truth or untruth of the evidence ?

This question was objected to. Witness continued: Considering that nothing had happened besides disunion of the pelvis I should have pu 1 her heal low, but if there were other injuries I might alter that position to the side. If the patient had been kept clean the bed sores could not have been so bad. To the best of my recollection she was on a chaff bod when I went. Condy’s fluid is not objectionable It. was impossible to put, her anywhere without resting on a sore. ■ Gray Hassall : lam surgeon in the Tinmru Hospital I have seen the patient. The position I would have put the girl in was on her hick. Ido no 1 think it, would have been objectionable to place the patient.on a feather bed. Ido not think Condy’s fluid the right thing. I should have used stronger disinfeeants. I should have placed the bono together after the inflammation had snbsii el. Mr Hamersley said the question was whether Dr Campbell bad acted negligently or not.

His Worship said there was another point. Dr Campbell hud stood out against calling in another medical man.

•Mr Hamersley urged that there was a great deal of discrcpanciy in the evidence. Up to the lime that Dr Campbell left, Ihe patient, was shown 10 have improved and was going on well. Af er some fur'her conversa'ion, His Worship in'ima'ed hat he was in favor of giving judgmen for the defendant. Mr Hamersley applied for a nonsuit, as he wanted to have the ease tried in the Dis'rict Court. The case was accordingly nonsuited with Costs. RESISTING! A BAILIFF. The cases in which George Kahn and William Smith were charged wi'h resis ing a bailiff, were adjourned for a week, the same bail being allowed.