CASE AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5204, 11 December 1895, Page 3

CASE AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN.

BROOKS V. BKiVKIJ.

At llio Wiiii'ai'«])ii District Court, this morning, Ivt'ofo J'is Honor, District Judge Kettle, tho case in which Bangor Brooks, of Mauricevilla, seeks to recover £2OO alleged ilMages, from Dr. S. I l '. Beard, of Masterton, was commenced. Mr 0, A. Powuall appeared for fplaintiff, and Mr G. P. Skorrett for defendant, ami the following jury was empanelled Messrs Alex. Henderson (foreman), George Sliaw, A. C. Hoar, and R L. Holmwood. In opening his case Mr Pownall explained the basis of claim ns slated hereunder

(1) Tho plaintiff is a settler residing at Mauriceville, in this district. (2) The dofendant is a duly registered surgeon and physician, resident at Masterton in this district, and practising at Mastcrton, and generally in the district. (3) On the 13th of July, 1895, the defendant in his professional capacity attended Louisa Brooks, wife of the plaintiff, she then having just given birth to a child.

■(4). The defendant negligently and unskilfully treated his said patient, particularly in not using certain antiseptic precautions for the removal of membranes, and in not taking any steps to cure or nllovinte the consequences that set up ;(to wit pnerpeml neptiraemk) on his becoming aware thereof, and generally neglected and failed to use proper skill aud attention in his treatment of the said patient, (5). Thattlicdcfendant,ifnotaware of the puerperal septicaemia, which set up us aforesaid was apprised of the symptoms thereof, three days after the birth by one Mrs Lehmsledt, aud was negligent and unskilful in not so becoming aware on being so apprised, or in failing to make no enquiry as to such symptoms or to attend the patient thereon. (6). Ontlic 20tliofJulythesaidLouisa Brooks died of pm'pmdseplitiwnm (7) That the death of the said Louisa Brooks was caused by the ueglcet of the defendant as aforesaid.

(S) TiiccliildofthcsaidLouisa Brooks lias since died and she luul no other children. (9) The said Louisa liroolis left parents living, who are John liossiter, bottler, of MauriceviUc, and Amelia liossiter, Lis wife. (10) No person has taken out letters of administration or probate to tho estate and effects of the said Louisa Brooks. _ By reason of the premises the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendant by way of damages the sum of £2OO. The statement of defence set out that tho defendant by E. T. D. Bell, his solicitor, says:—

(1) The defendant admits tho allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3. S and U of the plaintiff's statement of claim. (2) He denies the allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 5, 0 and 8 of the plain(ill's statement of claim, (3) The defendant was, upon the 13th of July, 1895, called in to attend prolessionalfy upon the Louisa Brooks men-, tioned in the statement of claim. (4) The said Louisa Brooks had then already been confined, and the defendant had not previously iieen notified or requested to attend upon her. He: 1 place of abode is at MauriceviUc, about 12.V miles from Mastcrton, where the defendant resides.

(5) The defendant thereupon, on the morning of the said 13th of July, proceeded at once to llauricevillc, and attended professionally upon the! said Lousia Brooks, and thereafter returned to Mastcrton.

(6) The defendant was only retained and employed to visit and attend upon the said Louisa Brooks on tlicone occasion lust mentioned.

(7). On the 17th day of July, 1895, the defendant was waited upon by the Mrs Lehmstcdt mentioned in the state ment of the claim. The said Mrs Lehnistedt gavo to the defendant certain information as to the condition of the said Louisa Brooks, but did not, as in paragraph 5 of the statement of claim, apprise the defendant of any symptoms pointing to perpend sepImiemiii. (8). The defendant, advised the said Mrs Lehmstcdt as to the treatment to be adopted, and instructed her that lie would, if requested, again visit the patient, tho said Louisa Brcoks. (9). The defendant was not at any time again requested to attend upon tho patient.

11. The defendant further says : (1) That he was not negligent in or about any matters set out in the statement of claim, but that on the contrary, he exercised a proper and competent amount of skill therein.

111. The defendant further says:— (1) That the death of the said Louisa Brooks was not caused by any act or omission of the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff did not Buffer tho alleged or any damage from such act or omission. IV. The defendant further says : (1) That the death of the said Louisa Brooks was caused either wholly by the negligence of the Plaintiff and his servants, or was contributed to by such negligence. V. The Defendant further says (I) That he denies that the plaintiff has in law, any right, title or authority to sue in this action.

The case is now proceeding,