RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1776, 14 August 1888, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Tbmuka—Monday, aujutst 13, 1888. (before Captain O. A. Wray, R.M.J PROHIBITION ORDER. On the application of Mr Anpinall, a prohibition order was granted against a reaideut, tc take effect in the Countieß of Geraldine, Mackenzie, and Waitnate. CITIL CASES. G. McS. Geutlemuu v. E. Smith—--0 aim £2 9s 2d.—Judgment by default for ihe amount clamed and coats. J. Anglaud v. J. Moynihan—-Claim £7 17s.—Judgment sutnruous. —Ordered to pay within a month, or three weeks' imprisonment. E. Waddell v. EUyes and Aapinall (trustees io the estate of the late John PatereDh)—Claim £H Us 2.1. The buui of £1 10s 6d was paid into Court. Mr Haywood appeared on behulf of the plaintiff, and Mr Aspioall for defendants. Mr Raymond explained that this was a dispute over the removal of a boundary fence.

Edwin Waddell, the plaintiff, deposed : I am the owner of land adjoining land owned by defendants. They are trustees in Mr Paierson'a estate. Some teu years ago Mr Patersou aud myself agreed to feuce. We agreed to put down posts and stakes and wire. 1 let the fencing to Mr Chides Neville. The fence was done, and was very substantial. It was of bluck pine and totim. 1 produce the cheques da'ed November, 1878. They total up £44 13a 61. I bought some of the material and he bought some. We settled it between u*. The live fence was indifferent. This fance existed until about a year ago. The post aud wire fence was. on the defepiant's side of the ;ive fence. It was in May hgt I heard the fencd had been removed. 1 fouud the fence at Chatteris' house. Tho fence was cattle proof up to then. It is not now. I saw the doctor and Mr A-piuall, but they guy<i me no satisfaction. They said 1 had nor, a le 6 to stand od. Mr Charters never risked my leave to remove it. To Mr was put up fur the protection of the gores fence. Tlc gorse fence may bd ten feet higli. The tenco is nut cattle proof. I ..ave not been tioublwd by any of the Crtttle or sheep fiom tho other side. I know ctttle and hheep wore on tho other side. The gorse hedge ie ou Iho buun !ary ? |

and the fence which was removed is 4 feet 'id on the dofoudanls' land. I went to look at the place after I heard it haii been removed. Never knew it, was removed until 1 heard of it. The gorse fence is not in a good condition. Without tho wire fence it iB no good at all. Saw Mr Aspitinll. He asked me to wait a few days until <l»o manager came from Win chenter. On the same day I went into Timaru and issued ? summons. Since then Mr Aspinall offered to pay my costH and half the value of the old fonce, but I refused it. I n int the fence put up. 1 never repaired the fence. To Mr Raymond ; The ditch is on my side. There is more land taken ap with the ditch than the distance the removed fence Vas in on the Springfield estate. Charles Neville, laborer, Temuki, deposed : Some ten years ago I put up the fence referred to for Messrs Paterson and Waddell, It was all new—seven p >sts and six wires. Have seen it since. I was clearing the drain out when they were removing the fence. The timber was the best that could bo got. They were light posts. Got lis a chain for it. To Mr Aspinall: Tho fence was put up to protect Lhe bank and the gorse fence. There are gaps in the fence. I could run through it. James Austin, farmer, Jiving at Winchester : I have lived there 21 years. The piece of fence which haß not been removed is in good preservation. The wire wants straining. Eiam'ned the p'ace where the fence was removed. Ido not think Mr Waddell could erect the fenne for the amount he is suing for in the same way that it was when removed. The pres nt fence is not cittle-proof. To Mr Aspinall ) There are places whero there is no gorse at all. It wants cutting down. It is too high.

George Ciiff, faimer at Winchester for 25 years : Know the fence referred to. Went and looked at the fence. A lot of poata were dug out, some were chopped oft', and some were cut off, The gorse fence ia overcrown, and is not cattleproof. There is nothing to keep cattle out but the ditch* 1 would not like to put up the ftsiice for the amount Mr Waddell estimates. To' Mr Aspinall# Had no permission from the trustees to go on the land. There are any number of holes in the fence. I got through. If the fence was falling on to the gorse the gorse could not be trimmed. If you said the fence was partia ly lying down I should not believe it. rlobert Matthews, farmer, at Winchester } Know the fence referred to. The gorse fence wants cutting down. It h net cattle»proof, and another fence will always be wanted there. Saw the part of the fence which was not removed. It would do for some ye»ra with a little repair. Do not think Mr Waddell could put up the fence for the amount he ia claiming. To Mr Aspiuall; Did not sea the fence before it was removed. The preseut fence is not cattle-proof. James Scott, farmer, residing near Mr WaddeU'a : Know the fence referred to r The gorse fence is not a cattle-proof fence. Have seen the part ot the post and wire fence remaining, and it is very fair, Mr Waddell underestimates tho cost of putting up the fence again. To Mr Aspiuall: Did not examine the fence before it was removed. Saw the place this morning by myself. i'his concluded the c*se for the plaintiff. I Dr Hayes, one of the trustees: Took over the trusteeship in 1887. Never ki.«vv Mr Waddell had any interest in the fence. The fence was removed for nearly a year before Mr Waddell spoke abont it. Mr Wadded began abusing the manager, and I told him I would see into it, I went to see the place. Ssveral of the poata were swinging on the ground ; some were falling out, and some into the feuce. Tuis was the remaining portion of the feuce. and it was not cattle-proof. The gorae is a thick high fence, with weak spots. Saw Mr Waddell afterwards, and I told him we should reptir any damage done. The gcrse fence was cattle proof. There were cattle there, and I did not go through, Mr Waddell was offered half the wire, but he would not take it. The fence was put up as protection for the gorse ; it served its purpose, and was no longer required. To Mr Raymond : The manager did Dot speak to ua about removing the fence. David Uharteria, manager SpriDgfleld lEdtate; 1 never knew Mr Waddell had the slightest interest in the forice. He never spoke to me about the fense. The fence was not trimmed in my time. The wire fence was useless, and would not stop cattle. It was lying against the goise, and the wire was lying about. I put a man on to remove it. The wire was coiled up. The good posts were used and the useless onea burned. Ho one could see from the road the condition of the fence. Mr Waddell did not complain of ihe removal of the fence then. The whole of the summer had 80 or 100 cattle in the paddock, and they never broke through. A bu'l ia the o'jly animal that would try to go through it. The fence wanted cutiiug, and I could not do it without taking aw«y the fence. The wire *as everywhere, and interfered with the ploughing. Did not cut any post with an axe. Only two were cut with the spade. Most of the posts were rotten. I told a party to tell Mr Waddell he could have half the wire. I stopped removing the fence whun I found Mr Waddel] luid claim to it. Tha posts removed were only wortti about 12*. Mr Waddell never spoke to ine übout it. I have not caused ucy dead gorse to be put in gaps. Had heard Mr Waddell'i estimate of value. Oouid not put «n estimate on the portion left standing. It was practically ya'ueless. None of thu p'aintiff'a witnesses told him that they wens g'ring to inspeat t!ie fence, nor iuvi ed him to go with thtm.

Cross-examined : of the material went to Springfie d, aud some to my house, part of which was outside ihe Court, Never had the fenco cut fince I was manager. The Springfield people had not cut the fence. They never had a chance, as the wire fence was in the way, Some of the stakes might be called light post 3, They were totara an i black pine. lie-examined : If the fence had been cut low down on the Springfield side i\ would still have been a sufficient fence. .Richard Matchem, laborer : Was at Spiingfie'd farm in 1887. Was put on to it-move I he fence in question. The wires wore broken down. iSightneu posts were standing, They weio pretty well uouod, Pulled tomo up and dug some up. Ijsfi them in a heap. Rolled up some of the wire, but some was too rotten. The part framorad was no protection to the gorao

ence nor any use. Some of 'ha posts were lying all over the pi nee, and soma of the wire was dragged into the piddock. Did not see Mr Waddell. The gorHe fence had no gaps. It seemed cattle proof. With the fence in its original position could not see how the gorse could be out. Cross-examined : There were citt'e on Peterson's estate. Was still employed occasionally on the estate. To the R.M. : The wire fence was along the bmk. Some of the gorse was hanging ever the fence. Took out 18 poats altogether. Gould no f . say how long they would have stood if left. They could Dot have been Rtrained up. Thought it would have been as cheap to erec a new fence. Thomas Mattingley, laborer: Wus employed to cut the fence in question, made a start in two or three place). Could cut the top but not the bottom. Gould not cut the fence as it was. Thought the fence was a good one. Did not know of any gaps. The poet and wire fence was only in the way, [t was no protection to the gorse fence. It had ho mone'ary value. Did not reckon the wire worth anything. Cross-examined : Was a groom by trade but had cut a good deal of gorse. If the fence had been kept cut, it might have been possible to have cut the fence now. If there were four f«et space it might h=ive been cut, but he hardly thought so. Had not bought any wire, but know the valua of posts and stakes. Consider the posts and wire when he saw them quito valueless. Geo. Payne, laborer, employed at Spriogfiald; Removed two S'Hind with a spade. All the rest wero rotten. Th» wire was broken and lying about fha paddock. Sone of the fence was lying in and sains out. It had been dragged about. The gorse fence was all overgrown. 1 believed it was oallle proof. This concluded the case aud counsel on both sides having addressed the Couit, Hh Worship in giving judgment said there was no evidence ot any agreement to keep the fence in repair. It appears thai the fence wus after ten years so bad that it was necessary to replace it by a new feuct". Ha wuuld give judgment for the pliiinutf for £3 5j »s his share of the fence, and for the £L 10<? 6i paid into Court,, with costs. H. W. Campbell v. J. Davey—-Claim £4 83. Mr Hay appeared tor p'aintiff and Mr White for defendant. Mr Hay stated thid was a c'aim brought by Dr Campbell to recover from the defendant the sum sued for for medical attendance. H. W. Carapboll, duly qualified medical practitioner, stated : 1 attended the wife of thedefeudaiitin coniinetnbut about the 29th of March 1 jst. She was confined on that day. There wms no particular ■l.fficulty nbout the cotifmonieir. Everything wus right when I left. I guvo her five visits altogether. On the 10th Apiishe was up, and told me there wus no necessity for my calling any more. She had told me before theie was no necessity co call so often. She told .no she got on bettor thau on. previous occasion, and thai (she had rather hard tunes before. There was nothing to suggest that she was not in a fit Htate to be left. Slie lives about five miles from town. JB.ith the defendant and his wife said thwy had never baen so well attended to before. After the day on which I left her sitting by the fire I did not s«e her until the 7th May. She then told me ehe had done hard work outride, and brought on blocdiug. 1 found her pulco full, natural, and there were no symptoms of fever. The symptoms Were audi as would lead to the conclusion that she had done hard work. If there had been much bleeding the pulse would be small and weak. There would be blanching, there would be general prostration, but none of these conditions were present. I left her mediciuo to check the bleeding, aud left her instructions. She told me 'f she wanted me she would send for me, but she never sent for me afterwards. 1 never heard from her until »fter sending my account. I got the letter produced. The letter repudiated the claim on th» ground of Degligeuce. The bieedhig might be cauaed by undue exertiOD, or it might be due to a portioa of the paceura remaining, but the placenta came away complete. A vascular growth would also cause bleeding, and this would not be easily distinguished from the placenta, There were several other causss. A med cal man would have only the evidence of symptoms to indicate the presence of any of these, but when : the patient got on wel l the medical mui ■ has nothiug to draw his attention tc thtm. The symptoms would be pain, rushing of blood, high pulse, restlessness, blood poisoning. When none of these symptoms Wtre present it would be homicidal I for a medical man to submit a patient to , examination. It is possible that there could be what is known as placenta succesgoria. This might not give symptoms ot its presence, but persistence in bleeding would be one of the symptoms. To make an internal examination was very serious, aud would not be made by a medical man without great reasons.

To Mr W.iite : I did aUend her vegulirly. luude five or six visits. She progressed satisfactorily, aud did not complain of paint*. I felt her pulse, but not on the 7th of April. I tried her pulse previously ; it was about 70. I did not say I would not make au examination when they asked me because they wanted to make au April fool of me. I told her on the 7th of May that it was necessary for me to call again but she uaid that she would send for me if required, i did not tell her that her case was not a serious one, and to kesp moving übout. There were no symptona of b o;d poisoning, the tongue was clean, and there was no prostration. Mrs Davey: \ v aa coufiued on 29th M-irch. Previously arranged with i)r (Jampball. It was my second child. It was an easier confinement than the lirsi. Was no trouble, l)r Campbell to look ut the baby's stomach ou the Ist Apri l . flu declined, saying he did not want to bo made an April fool of. He tod me to W'jsh it two or tlirc-e times a day. My husbaud and nurse weie. pn'seut. On ttie 7th April complained of bisvere pam in the stem .oh. la rising up or siting down it mule me scream. It was easiei when sitting down or standing. He s=.iJ ii wouldt ke.i month to get right, lid mixed me some medicine, »nd brought it with him. He did £ioi nuke any examination. Dni not feel my pulse Did no hard work, Jlad u woman or a giri With inc. Did not toll Dv (Jumpboll thai

1 had done hard work. Oo 7th May I sfmt for (he inirao and Mrs Norton. Dr Campbell when he came held my wiiat for a short time, but did not make any examination of my body, He left Borne pills and made up a mixture. He said " If you take the medicine and do no hard work you'll Boon be all right. There is uot much the matter." He said, " I won't need to come and see you again. The next time I see you, you will be well and strong iu u Temuka street.*' Told me not to sit up late or aet up early. Was to be up on my feet, but to lift no heavy weights. On Saturday, the 12th, was worse. Sent for Dr Hayes, as I had no faith in Di Campbell. Did not like his saying thero was not much wrong. Feared that there was On l ihe 121. hDr Hayes examined me outI wardly, and told my husband to call on I Sunday for a mixture. On the Monday Dr Hayes performed an operation. Mrs Anderson and Mrs Norton were present. He took a piece of placenta from me, My health has improved since. Remained in bed i fortnight after the operation. Had gradually recovered strength. Suffered Crem feverish heats and cold tremblings while Dr Campbell attended me. Could not give definite date. On the 7th May was quite ill with feverish heats and tremblings. Told Dr Campbell, who said he would leave rr>e something to take. He never took my temperature. Cross-examined : My first confinement was more severe than the second. When Dr Campbell left do not remember telling him that it was satisfactory trentm«ut. It would have been true if I had said so. ['Vitoess broke down.J On tho 7lh April was not satisfied. On the eighth day after confinement felt the paius described and wished the doctor would come. Was not sure if he was coming .gaiu. Had not told him about them before. Got up on the tenth day. Remained up till 7th May. Went for a shoit drive on the 6th May. Wheß tha doctor called complained of pain, Had not experience it before. Did uot expect the doctor to return after die 7th of April. I did very little work, tie did not tell me not to do hard work till the 7th of May. He did not examine me. He did not do any more ihhn feel uiy pulse. Told him I eould eat nothing owing to pain. He said there was nothing wrong. Did not toll him [ had been doing ha'd work. Did not hpeak about i». H'id no faith ia him because he did not eximine me or take any interest in me. To Mr,,White • My husband was only at home ou the night of the coon' lemeut and the Ist of April. John D*vey :Oa the 29ch March went for tho doctor, and he came, I never told the dootor I was satisfied with hit treatment. I never loiti him there was no necessity for aim to Oill again. Oathdlibof April she asked him to look at the be.br, and he said ■' Oh, no ; this ia the lab of April, You are trjiug to make a fool of me." My wife ia d " No," and he said " Wash it three or (our times a day." On the 9th May found toy wif aia bed, very p>le and trembling. Iu consequence of whuC 1 had heard of what Dr Oimpbjll suii Itoofc it eaiy. 0j the lOib id*? I nailed on i-he dooior, atid he said she wouid bj as tfeli in bed fo: a little while, and that the medicine wjulU put her right in a day or two. On tee 11 h went to work and did not ooine home until Saturday and 17as told she «»* worse and that Dr Hayes had been oeut for. Dc Hayes ami. Oj the lUtn she was very bai, and I went to Dt Hayes and got mcdioiae, whtoh relieved her. Oa iho U;h Dc Uayas performed a l operation, and on the 15 h she was very bad, After thac she got better. Df Hayes' bill was £ll 17- 6d, I wrote to D: Campbell re* pudiating his oiaim, i'o Mr Hay : Di Hije3 attended my wife before, She was very bid at the time, The reason I runt for Dr Campbell was because he was oheapor. The co&flioment was satisfactory. Oj the Bth oi April was the first ci'mo my wife expressed diis&tufaction. She tras not well after loaving the b.d, The babj is pretty well.

ftd-examinad : Did not know on the 10th that; my wife was dissatisfied wLh He Campbell. 811 ah Norton, wife of John Norton ; Wai .it Mrs Djvej'i on thj 14th May. She was very weak. Dr Hayes trim there. He per formed an operation. Stayed with bei that night. Sne wai very weak and bad, and twice it waa thought the would die. She gradually got better to wardi morning. Was there also on the 7th May. Mrs wai not lubjeotid to chloroform. The substance removed wai of irregular shape. On the 7th she had hot flushes. She went to bed thai day previous to Dt Oampbell's visit. John Shaw Hayes, duly qualiflidmadioal praotitioner of 14 years' experience: Hold degree of M..D. Was tent to riiit Bin Divey. Found her in bad. She wai in a weak and nervous oanditioo, Aiksd her what was the matter. Lsarned she had been confined six weeks previously, and had not got on well since. She said she had been luring blood. She said the discharge had luted ever Binos her oonflaemsnt, and had increased after her getting up. Sle was pal-: and bloodless-looking, tongue furred, high temperature (102 deg.), quiok pulse (112 to the minute). She had shivering! and sweats. Her skin was hot, and dry to the touoh. She stated that after the shivering fits the broke into a weats, and was much exhausted. Had pain. Her appetite was poor. She wai tnirsty and sleepless. She oomplained of pain in the abdoauen. The symptoms indioatud to him (witness) blood-poisoning. Recommended her to stay in bed ; nourishing diet, small quantity and often Oame to the oonolusion it was a dangerous caie. Thought it probable shewould not reoover. Her husband came the following morning at 4 o'olook, and asked for medicine to relieve his wife's pain, Did not see her that day. On the Moaday went pre pared to do what was necessary. Took insirumentß, and examined internally, Mm Nor lon assisting. Did not administer ohloroloraa, as no secmd doctor was present. After the operation the patient wai in a mast oritiottl state. GUve her strengthening medioines; also others to prevent absorption of poisonous subitaace. Substance removed was a portion of placenta, with ffhioh was entangled a large dot. Mrs Norton flaw it. Examined it afterwards in her presence. It was unquestionably a part of iher plaoenta and a olot. Thef allowing day the patient waa very weak, but had improved. Attended her. until convalescent. Had rendered aooount for servioes, It amounted to about £lO.

To Mr Ha; : I did nob sea her until the 12 h of May. She must have had the same jjinptoma from the Bth of April, I did not examine the aubitauce mioroacopioally, but pl&osnta is very easily recognisable. It is possible something abnormal may remain without giving any iudioaiions of ils existence to trie medical m*u. I hare read of ei6e3 of a supplementary placanta, but never met ih;m. I'ne leaving of a imall piece of placenta d.ei noi provo negligeoce. ilioad pouohinu be oau.ed by a clot. Continued h.umoriicgs indicates tne eiistonoj ot sums hjujvuju mbatance. If I attended a patient fix weeks after oonttuement and lound herinorrhage I would try

other remtdiM before performing any operation.

To Mr White t In a ease where the patient complained of pain I would make an examination of the constitution of the patient, The first thing would be to ascer. tain the seat of pain, and try to diagnose the . case. I bare no doubt of the substance being a part of the plaosnta. To the Court: The negligence consisted in not deteci ing the presenoe of the substance • by the symptoms. Dr Lovegrove : f haro heard the evidence, and it by no means indicates' negligence on the part of the medical attendant. It ii quite possible for a substance like placenta to remain. It is unusual for a medical man to examine in such oases. My opinion of the case is that it is a very rare oaso in which a supplementary placenta is found. It would not be negligence on the part of the doctor not to have discovered it. It is very common to hear of complaints of pain. It is quite possible the symptoms whioh Dr Hayes dis« covered on the 12th were not present oa the 7th. IE the symptoms were hot present it would be unusual for a doctor to make an examination. It is quite common for hemorrhage to come on in a month after. From the evidence I conclude there was no ground for charging the medical man with negligence. To Mr White: In a oase like this I should not have seen the patient after confinement when five miles from town unless sent for. If things go on all right and no ■aspioioul circumitanoes arise I would make bo inquiry. I should be alarmed if flashes and sweatiigs were observable, If what Mrs Davey says is true I should do more than feel the pulse. I should certainly have taken her tempera* ture, After hearing: the evidence of Df; Hayes I do not think the ejmptoms were caused by the remaining substance. To Mr Hay: According to the evidence Dr Campbell did exactly the proper thing, and very likely I would do no mora. Dr Maclntyre ;■ I am of opinion that the substance referred to by Dr Hayes might I have been present without any negligence on the part of the medical man. It is not usual for a medical man to return to a case where the confinement is easy unless sent for, especially at a distance. Peine on the Bth, when the patient got up, were nothing to o&use alarm, The case referred to is rare, and pains would not suggest inch a thing. If the patient complained of chills I would sußpeot something, I would follow np the symptoms before performing any operation. Taking Mrs Davey's story I would not perform the operation, but the symptoms described by Dr Hayes oi the 11th would be altogether different. After Davey having told Dr Campbell on the ICth that his wife was easier the medical attendant eould not be expected to see her again, unless sent for. To Mr White: If I were called in on the 7th I would try to ascertain the cause, and proceed to do what was necessary. I approve of what Dr Hayes did on the 12»h. I know him to be a oareful practitioner. To Mr Hay: It was possible for a portion of the placenta to remain, and there wouldjbe no negligenoe on the part of the practitioner, not to know it was there. This completed the evidenoe at 6,20 p.m., and counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, His Worship reserved his decision. The Court rose at 7 o'clock.