The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 24. 1883. THE CAMPBELL V. GRANT CASE.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1075, 24 February 1883, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. SATURDAY. FEBRUARY 24. 1883. THE CAMPBELL V. GRANT CASE.

The judgment given by His Honor Judge Ward in the above case last Thursday surprised a great many, not, we think, without sufficient reason. Since we came to know Judge Ward we. have sincerely admired the impartial patient, and thoroughly sound manner hi which he has invariably administered justice. We have always looked upon him as one of the fairest judges and one of the soundest lawyers in New Zealand, and though we do not agrre with his judgment in the case under review we feel confident our estimate of his abili ties is not far wrong. But the best of judges, as well as the best cf doctors, or the best of any other profession, is liable to err, and in this case we thb'k he has erred egregious!}’. In order to show 'hat the judgment is erroneous it is necessary to state the case as it appears from the evidence given in Court. The daughter of the defendant was thrown from a horse and draggel along over rough ground until her clothes were lorn off her body, and when b und she was nearly nude, and scarcely conscious. Her injuries were so serious that at first there was scarcely a hope of her recovery. Dr Campbell was called in, and treated her in a certain way, and Drs Macintyre, Lovegrove and Hogg, swore that she could not have been treated better, and that Dr Campbell’s treatment was perfectly sound and .skilful. Dr Hassall was also, though an adverse witness, more or less tamable to Dr Campbell, Although he said other modes might have been adopted, he still was not able to say Dr Campbell was either wrong or unskilful in his treatment. The only doctor that evinced any strong disposition to differ from Dr Campbell’s treatment was Dr Hayes. We shall not offer any opinion on his part of the transaction, but we will say this, I bat even he was not able to prove that Dr Campbell had treated his patient unskilfully. It is evident 'I the judgment could not have ueen arrived at on the ground that Dr Campbell had treated his patient unskilfully. The evidence of the doctors puts that matter beyond dispute. Dr Campbell has lost the case, but his reputation as a skilful surgeon has not suffered in the least. In fact, we think that he must stand higher in public estimation now than ever, because it has been shown beyond a question of dispute that the case was a most serious one, that Dr Campbell possessed sufficient confidence in himself to undertake it, that he tiealed it most skilfully, and that the patient was progressing rapidly under him until ho ceased to visit her. We think these facts must go a great way. towards raising Dr Campbell in public estimation, because they give a guarant' e that he possesses sound professional skill as well as conti lence in himself, which is a trait very desirable in the character of a doctor . . Wit)i regard to; the question of negligence, for it is on that point alone that any one could find , fault with him, we feel inclined to think that he was not culpable. The defence tried to prove negligence in three ways : First by declining to call in another doctor to consult with him ; secondly, by neglecting to use proper means for preventing lied-sores ; and thirdly, by neglecting to send another medical man to attend the patient when he was no longer able to attend himself. To show iiow assiduously Dr Campbell attended to his patient it is only necessary to mention that he visited her once even 1 day from the 3rd to the 15th, and after that nearly every second day. Unless he remained altogether with her, tie could not be expected to go a distance of 11 miles more often, and so far that shows he was not neglectful. And as regards calling in another man, Dr Macintyre said he would not have done so under the circumstances, as what the patient required was the enjoyment of perfect rest. It was shown that another doctor could not have possibly done any good, and when Dr Campbell knew this he was justified in not calling one in. But though Grant swore in Ternuka that Dr Campbell refused to call in another doctor, he stated in Timaru that Dr Campbell agreed to go into Timaru and consult another medical man, and Di

Campbell went in and held a consultation with Dr Fish r, so that he does no' appear to Imve sinned very grievously tliere. Now as regards the sores. D< Hayes holds they were hed-sorcs hrough l on by negligence, and all the otliei doctors maintain they were sores brought on by bruises. We think that common sense will tell anyone that the sore*must have bad their origin in bruises, because anyone will see that the girl must necessarily have been fearful!' bruised. To say that the girl had been thrown off a horse, and draggsl along rough ground 'ill her clothes were torn off her, and that she escaped without being bruised a 1 over, is to say what no one outside a lunatic asylum will believe. The Ju Ige in his summing up laul great stress on these sores. He said it was a strange coincidence that there were sores exactly where bed-sores appear. In reply to this, we say that these were the very parts of the body which were likely to have been bruised when (he girl was bumping along the ground while being dragged. We think it would have been a most miracu'ouc thing if she had escaped being bruised ; a far more extraordinary thing than that sores came on exactly where bed-sores might have appeared, The medical witnesses agreed that they were not bed sores, and they ought to know more about it than Judge Ward. On this point, at any rate, the learned Judgi* appears to have set common sense aside altogether, for we cannot sec how anyone giving the matter the least consideration could see anything strange in the sores being the result of bruises. The soies then must have been the the result of bruising which the poor girl received, and could not have been prevented. We do not care to enter into the mother’s share of the negligence as regards the degree of cleanliness that was reached, hut there is one thing that may be said, and it is that very few who beard the evidence would wish her to nurse him. The condition of filthiness which she allowed her child to reach was anything but creditable. The only point in which Dr Campbell failed was in not sending some man in his place when he fell 511 and could no longer go himself. That is the only point on which he can be blamed. Had he not been taken ill he would have succeeded in curing the girl, and imthhig would have been heard of the case. Hut lie became ill, and neglected te send another man in his place, and hence ail the commotion. In fact the judgment wa» given against Dr Campbell because he became il 1 , and the question is, Was he bound .to send another man in his place? Tho Judge him elf said in the beginning of the case that there could be no contract with a medical man to attend until a cure was efftcled, and Dr Lovegrove said that he certainly would not have sent another man in his place, because he would not know whether the m m would be acceptable or not. These two utterance* seem to us to release Dr Campbell from any obligation regard-, ing the sending of a medical man in his fd ce, and so we have at last narrowed the question down to whether he ought to have advised tiie parents to send for another doctor when he found he could not attend himself. Dr Campbell says he told Grant to do so when ho came down to see him, but Grant says he did not. In this case one oath was as good as another, and there was no reason •why Dr Campbell should not have been believed as soon as Grant, On the whole we think that Dr Campbell has not had fair play.