The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1871-08-19 00:00:00

ACTION AGAINST -^
PRACTITIONE,ai.

At the Croydon Antis, the cause tit "Trotter r. Downes,"
lew been heard, alai was an action against a medical practi-
tioner for negligence.

- -
It appeared that Mr. Downes is a medical practi-
tioner in Southwark, London, where he has been estab-
lishol for upwards of 20 years. lie has three assistants,
two id them being pupil assistants, and tine senior.
One day, the stlt of June last, a working woman, the
called at Ids shop, Mel asked one of the junior
assistants, 11,, she said, for "Rochelle salts," but, as he
said, for " Rochter salts," for which lit-gave her car-
bonate pita., or salts if tartar -a powerful alkali,
whit-h, unless it is rejected, corrodes the Stollalleh, Mid
may, in that way, even mune death, if taken in any
large quantity. According to the evidence, he gave
her .oily half an ounce, for he gave her only a penny-
worth, and there were 110 qiwstions;asked nor directions
given as to the mode or quantity in which it should be
taken. She, indeed, stated that she wanted it for the
bile, but this he denied, and hii wa, ci ndirmed.
She took, as she said, a spoonful of it in water, and it
caused her violent vomiting and great pain. There
was its doubt that it 111.1 for the tinte cause great de-
pression and prostration, but on the balance of evi-
dence, and even on her own medical evidence, it caused
her 110 serious injury. She went to a medimd ULM
Darned Alexander, who was called on her Is-half, and
gave evidence to that effect, and though another prac-
titioner gave t,elllo evidence on her behalf, it dhl not
amount to more than temporary discomfort or slight
injury. Anil this view W:e: suppwted by the evidence
of three able practitioners-- Di% Jen is, physician
of St. Thomas's, Mr. Stone, and Mr. Hobert,
However, she went in a day or two to Mr.
Downes, the defendant, and declared she hail suf-
fered severely, and claimed isimpensation. He sill he
could see Ito symptoms if injury, and that, as she had
thrown it off, it could do her tv, further harm, :nal that
he would give her isome medicine to n-lilt II I it
Snt afterwards, however, an :Wortley's tI.IL.
L.11;••.1ill110111011St., CailletolllllltMelidin istlttl!•• '•
an- said that if she could hint, and he •
sin- hail sustained auy damage. lit would v., o• o
her ; and he subselnently, he tail, in order to avoi.,
the vexation Of an action, offerm I to pay as much a,
CIO or 4:7,11, but in vain. A writ was issmsl, :old an
action Was brought against the 1111fertlillat, 1,!, .:•
man, who had 41011 e the he•t he madd to roim • ! •
onMeAluence of an error on the Intrt of an it,si,t•,n; in hi,
absence, and which had, acoednig 'till, t• V Mel
hit re:d injury at all. It api.cared that the attecney's
clerk entertained sanguine expectations of the fruits
of the action, and even the sum if £2OO %MS mentioned
as the praxible amount of damages. remlt,
however, it will be wen, WaS very different indeed.
The Wellian gave her evidence ant a witness, and was
supported by her daughter. Aceonling to her :dory
she had been quite laid up ; there Were serious symo-
tuns, and even paralysis spoken of as innuinent. F. s•
the defence the et ii iii ent medical witnesses a1r...!!,
mentioned, who hail examined the woman, v. ,
called, and tic-jr ev,leuee chow,4l that there w•.. • •
real injnry at all -nothing beyond the temp o. •
effect nothing really serious ; and witnesses N, • .•
called who proved that the woman had spoken of t!..•
circumstance as a means and 8.11 occasion of obtainio;
money a-, .1:11113g1,..

After a lug trial, the learned P.ll.llFummed up the
case dispassionately to the jury. If, he said, the assist-
ant hail understood the woman as asking for Rochelle
outs, and had given her the carbonate for it, or if he
hail not taken care to ascertain what it was she
wanted, the defendant would be liable ; lint if he gave
her what she askcil for, then, as she did not ask for
directions about its use (though it would have been
better to have given thend, the ilvfendant was not
liable. Even, however, though the jury found for tit •
plaintiff. there. W 0.1141 rennis the .pwstion if damages.
RS to which the learned Judge observed thew Wort•
many circumstances which resPdred considerath in; th,
case must he looked at as a whole ; mil there seas
strong evhlence if itad ml dill with esSe, that the Wollia,l
sa,.tained no real injury at all. Moreover, floe-,
was great reason to sn,pect tint it ww: the attorney's
clerk, rather than the wonmn, who was; intcreste.l
the action.

Tln• jury. after a brief con,ltation, gave a vcralet
f. .r the plaintiff fuole•