The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1869-02-20 00:00:00

DISPUTING A DENTIST'S BILL.

In the Court of Exchequer in London, the case of
'Lows v. Lord Brougham" has been tried, and was
an action for the amount of a dentist's bill. The de-
fendant paid 182 into court, which he said was
sufficient to satisfy the plaintiffs
The plaintiff, Andrew Lows, was a dentist at Carlisle
and Penritn, and he brought this action against the
defendant, as executor of the late Lord Brougham, to
recover the amount of the following bill, which was
sent to his lordship on the 22nd N.,vember, 1862 —"21:
visits and consultations at Carlisle, Brougham Hall,
and London ; repairing sets of upper and under teeth ;
two upper and lower sets of artificial teeth, gold
springs awl swivels; brushes, powder, &c.—tls7 10a."
It appeared that the late Lord Brougham sought
the services of the plaintiff in the autumn of 1862,
and that during a period of four or five months he
was frequently attended by the plaintiff, and his
assistant. When the account was sent in his lordship
made some objection to it, and it remained unpaid
until his death, when, on application being made for
the money, the defendant refused to pay on the ground
that the charges were exorbitant. The plaintiff
charged forty guineas for each of the two mete of teeth,
and two guineas for each of the attendances, amounts
which were said to be moderate under the "embar-
rassing circumstances." The assistant said his lord-
ship's mouth wag very sensitive, and that he was very
impatient and petulant under the operation of the
dentist, and the plaintiff mentioned that he sometimes
conversed a good deal at the consultations, and would
occasionally give an account of his early life.
In cross examinw icn he denied that the man whom
he sent to Grafton-street, London, with the bill in
November 62, tolcl him that Lord Brougham had
expressed his astonishment, and said he had no doubt
he (the plaintiff) had come to town to swindle him on
hearing of his going away to Cannes.
Several witnesses were called to prove that the
charges were fair and proper.
Mr. Keane, on the part of the defence, said that his
client felt bound, in justice to the memory of the de-
ceased, as well as for the protection of the interests of
his representatives, to resist the claim which he be-
lieved extravagant and extortionate. In December,
1862, Mr. William Brougham wrote to the plaintiff for
particulars of his claim, but received no reply, and in
spite of repeated applications to the same effect the
particulars were not sent until a few months before
Lord Brougham's death, which occurred in 1868. In
consequence of the dispute, some one was sent, in De-
cember, 1862, to the plaintiff's place at Carlisle, to
ascertain his prices, and IVIVI informed that the cost of
a complete set of teeth of the best kind was 25 gui-
neas. This clearly proved, contended the learned
counsel, that the plaintiff had grossly augmented his
claim, and that the amount paid into court was amply
sufficient.
James Garbett, the personal attendant on Lord
Brougham for 26 years, was called to contradict the
plaintiff with respect to some of the alleged inter-
views, and he said his lordship was so impatient that
he would never allow a dentist to remain long enough
with him to do his work. When the bill was brought
to him in December, 1862, he was very indignant, and
sent off the plaintiff's man very quickly.
A carver, named Joseph Scutt, proved what the
plaintiffs prices were in 1862.
A very characteristic letter from Lord Brougham to
his brother was read, in which he said he should not
pay the blll, which was beyond all endurance.
Mr. Hepburn and Mr. Cartwright, the eminent
dentists, gave evidence as to their charges, which were
much below those made by the plaintiff.
After a prolonged absence, the jury returned into
. court with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £22
10s. beyond the amount paid into court.