A MESMERIC IMPOSTURE.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 454, 19 January 1869, Page 3

A MESMERIC IMPOSTURE.

A nice case of imposture has just been made public in the Resident Magistrate's Court, Hokitika. The well-known mesmerist, "Dr." T. G-. Carr, has been for several weeks past entertaining the public of Hokitika and Ross with what he called "mesmeric seances" but what they ought properly to have been called may be gathered from the fact that one of his "''subjects," Mr J. C. Kerr, has sued him for £3O wages for simulating being under the operator's influence. During the plaintiffs cross-examination tho following evideuce is reported by the West Coast Times to have been given : —Mr Harvey: Do you mean to say that Dr Carr engaged you to simulate that you were under the influence of mesmerism ? Plaintiff: Tes, by his agent Mr Leigh. He said if I was any sort of a subject I should travel with Dr Carr. Dr Carr was perfectly aware

thit I was only shamming. I never went to him for my eyes. He wanted to treat for them, but I did not care about it. I certainly have a nervous affection of the eves, but I have bad that since childhood. Dr Carr punctured me on the forehead for my eyes. Mr Harvey: And so, in return for what Dr Carr did to .your eyes, you a 'sisted in throwing dust in the eyes of the public? Plaintiff: Tes (Laughter) I was not in a position to refuse. I mean I was out of employment, and so could not help myself. Mr Harvey : So if the public choose to be gulled, you were willing to assist in gulling them. Plaintiff: Yes. But I consider I have more pluck than many to I come here and expose it. I did not I think it was illegal, and that I could be prosecuted as a common cheat. I thought it a lark. I had another motive in coming here besides that of recovering what I consider I am justly entitled to; that motive is to prevent Dr Carr from continuing his entertainments. The Eesident Magistrate, in delivering the judgment of the court, said there could be no doubt for a moment what the verdict should be. The plaintiff" had systematically deceived the public by his own evidence, and could not recover under any alleged contract. Judgment for defendant with costs. " Dr" Carr, of course, asserts that he also was one of the deceived. .