AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XII, Issue 3858, 15 July 1891, Page 2

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

Injury 197 HotfootLls Damages In the Woodrille R.M. Court on Friday last an herbalist named Mitchell was sued for £IOO damages by a man named Ready for negligence in making up a prescription for the latter's wife, whereby she suffered iujury.

J. Ready stated he went to the defendant as an herbalist. Told him his wife had a pain in the back. Defendant gave him a lotion and told him to rub it in with a rough towel. Would not swear to the bottle produced. When he used the lotion his wife told him it burned her ; defendant had said it was harmless ; during the night she complained of suffering pain ; when he proceeded to use the lotion next morning he thought his wife was going mad; her back was read and inflamed and at night it was quite raw. On Monday j he told defendant of the matter

He said then he bad another patient that way, and he would call and see Mrs Ready. Defendant went in witness's absence and got the bottle, and witness meeting him coming back he persuaded defendant to go back and examine his wife. Defendant tben said he bad made a mistake and offered to send Dr Milue, but he did not come. His wife got worse, and witness saw him again when he went and asked Dr Davenport to see Mrs Ready. He told the doctor he had given her stuff in mistake, and had burned her. Dr Davenport did not. care to go, but afterwards said he would go for charity's sake. Defendant said he would pay Mrs Ready fair compensation and witness' wages, also the medical expenses. Mrs Ready had in consequence been laid up since last "month and unable to work. Defendant had paid for the prescriptions made up by Mr Syms. Bridget Ready gave evidence as to the suffering she endured from the application of the lotion. When her husband examined her back he said, "It is like a piece of raw beef. If I had Michell here I would break his head." Witness gave corroborative evidence, and stated defendant took the bottle and refused to leave it, stating it was not paid for. She had not her clothes on from the Bth to the 20th, and suffered great pain. She had to give a woman 20s and keep her husband out of work. Witness was still very ill. Dr Davenport deposed that the woman had suffered from congestion of the kidneys and irritation of the bladder caused by the application of a wrong liniment. There was great danger from unqualified men practising in this way.

The defendant admitted that he had used a washing fluid instead of a " rheumatic embrocation," but said the labels of his bottles had been altered. He had practised as a herbalist for twelve months, but was a junior clerk before. He knew nothing about analysis.

The Bench considered a junior clerk had no right to prescribe medicines and awarded £ls damages, with Court fees £2 9s, solicitor's fee £1 Is, and witnesses' expenses £2 Bs.