The Express.
London, England, 1866-11-13 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.—Nov. 12.

Sittings at Nisi rrims—(Before Mr. Justice Blackburn
and a Common J 017.)

ABSOLON V. STATILIM.-ACTION AGAINST A MEDICAL MAN.
. - .

o -•- ----- -
This was en action brought by the plaintiff, Sarah Ab-
solon, to recover from the defendant compensation in
damages for an ass mull in administering chloroform against
her will, and extracting six of her teeth. The defendant
pleaded, first, not guilty, and, secondly, that what he did
was with the leave and license of the plaintiff.
Mr. Montagu Chambers, Q.C., and Mr. Telford Salter
were counsel for the plaintiff ; Mr. Gifford, Q.C., and Mr.

Murphy for the defendant.
It cppeared from the learned counsel's opening that the
plaintiff was, previous to the matters of which she now
complained,. in the habit of earning her livelihood by work-
ing for private families as a dressmaker. She suffered
greatly from toothache, and in the month of August, 1664,
she beard that a gentleman belonging to the Great North-
ern Hospital was in the habit of relieving patients
without drawing the teeth. She accordingly went
to the hospital and saw a gentleman named Byers,
who told her that the gentleman to whom she re-
ferred was the defendant, and that be resided at 60, Wins-
pole-street, and was one of the surgeons of that establish-
ment. She went to Wimpole-street and saw the defen-
dant, who gave her something to put in her tooth, and
requested her to call again. She accordingly went away
I and called a few days afterwards, when he proposed to
take out one of her teeth. She, however, refused, upon
which he intimated his intention of using chloroform.
rpon his stating that she replied, " No, that cannot be.
Some years ago chloroform was administered to me. I
suffered severely from its effects, and my father informed
me that Dr. Kelly told him that it would be dangerous to
administer it to me again." She went away, and a day
or so afterwards she again visited the hospital,
and saw Dr. Cracknell, who endeavoured to laugh
her out of the notion of refusing to take chlo-
roform. She again refused to be placed under its
influence, but was told to go into the waiting room, where
she accordingly went. After remaining there some little
time, she was taken to a bed room by one of the nurses
and requested to undress. She refused to do so. She was
thereupon requested to take off her bonnet and shawl,
which she did, and upon that the defendant came into
the room, requested her to open her mouth, which she
also did, and in doing Po she closed her eyes. Whilst her
eyes were closed Mr. Byers came in and placed a hand-
kerchief over her nose and mouth, when she became insen-
sible. She remained a short time in that state. She re-
covered her consciousness whilst the defendant was in the
act of pulling out a fifth tooth, he havingalreaily extracted
four. She was suffering the most acute pain. She screamed
and kicked, and the defendant then seized her by the
throat in order to ston her screams. He succeeded in
drawing six teeth, and then requested her to be put to bed.
She remained in bed for sonic few bourn and was then sent
home in a cab. She passed a wretched night, not being
able to sleep, nor knowing whether she was awake or
dreaming, and experiencing a sensation as if her head were
being twisted off. She was subsequently sent by the
defendant to the Scrofuletic Hospital at Margate, where she
remained for a month, then returned to London, and again
was sent to Margats. She gradually got very ill, the
illness increased, and at the present time her nervous
system was so shaken that she was unable to attend to her
business, and her legs were so weak that she was obliged to
use crutches. The illness, the learned counsel said, was
the result of a severe shock to her nervous system, caused
by the defendant forcing her to inhale chloroform against
her will, drawing so many teeth at one time, and treating
her so roughly upon her recovery.
Mrs.Absolon, who was brought into court upon crutches,
and was accommodated with a seat on the bench between
the learned judge and the jury, proved the above facts.
In her cross-examination she said that she was 34 years
of age. She had been an out-patient of the Royal Free
Hospital, and was treated by Dr. Gant. She had also been
to Guy's, where she was treated for nervous debility. She
was often requested to take chloroform, but always re-
fuseiL She never suffered from serofula. She was sent
to M.irgatc to be treated for swollen glands, in consequence
of defendant pressing her throat. Dr. Statham had always
acted very kindly towards her since this affair. He had
paid money for ber. She told him she was unable to
work. She was under sixteen years of age when she was
married.

Mr. Gant said he was one of the surgeons belonging to
the hospital in Gmy's-inn-lane. About August, ls4l, the
plaintiff consulted him, and complained of pain in her jaw
and limbs. She visited him again after the operation, and
still complained of pain in her jaw, and also that she felt
as if her head were being twisted off her shoulders. She
was still suffering from great nervousness. The Margate
Infirmary is for scrofuletic patients. She was in no way
scrofuletic.

Cross-examined—To the best of his knowledge, the effect
of chloroform was transitory. He had known of a case
where a patient had suffered symptoms for a week after
inhaling chloroform, but that was the longest time.
Re-examined—The application of chloroform against a
patient's will would tend to injure the nervous system.
Mr. Daniel Hooper said he was a member of the Royal
College of Physicians, and one of the physicians at the
('grey-street Dispensary. He first saw the plaintiff in
May, 1866, and prescribed for her. She was then in a
highly nervous state. Directly he began to speak to her
her joint@ would shake, and there was an imploring look
in her eye which was a safe proof of the patient suffering
from hysteria. She told him that chloroform had been
administered to her against her will. At the Carey-street
institution a consultation is always held before administer-
' ing chloroform.
Cross-examined—Tbe lose of her limbs could not be
from what occurred at the Great Northern Hospital, if
her account were true. I should say that her affliction
was the result of the original complaint. Hysterical pa-
tients have a peculiar leaning towards malingering.
Mr. Justice Blackburn—What does " malingering "
mean
Witness—We apply. it in the rote of " shamming."
Re-examined—My impression was that she was deceiv-
ing herself and me too.
Dr. Hyde Salter said he was attached to the Charing-
! cross Hospital. He had prescribed for the plaintiff.
Looking at this prescription I should think she was suffer-
! ing from hysteria at the time. Hysteria was extreme
! nervousness, which a violent shock might increase, but
certainly would not produce. He had seen patients
thrown into hysterics by a violent shock. If a patient
told him that a medical man had said it would be danger-
ous for her to take chloroform he might perhaps refer to
the surgeon before administering it ; he was not sure he
should do it.
Cross-examined—He had given chloroform in a variety of
cases : it could not have had anything to do with the
plaintiff's present condition.
By Mr. Chambers—She was now suffering from hysteri-
cal affection very markedly. It was extremely likely to
affect her limbs and produce lameness. There was hysteri-
cal paralysis; she was a person in which it was likely to
occur.
Mr. Kelley, licentiate of the Royal College of Physi-
cians, Edinburgh—He had know the plaintiff for 0 or 1G
pars. About 12 or 14 years ago he administered chloro-
form to her. She had a poisoned hand. The chloroform
produced severe convulsions, and afterwards a hysterical
attack of a severe character. He was anxious about the
case, fearing she might die that night, and he told her
father never to allow her to take chloroform again. He
should hesitate before administering it to her again. It
would be attended with increased risk. He should not
have administered ehkeoform to her in August, 1264, on