The Sun.
London, England, 1854-01-27 00:00:00

W INTELLIGENCE.—Jan. 26.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Sittings in Banco.—Before the Chief Baron, Mr. Baron
Parke, Mr. Baron Alderson, and Mr. Baron Martin.)

BARRETT V. POWER.-SECURITY FOR COSTS.-SINGIILAR
CASE.

This was a rule obtained by the defendant, calling on
the plaintiff to show cause why he should not give secu-
rity for costs. It appeared from the affidavits, on which
the rule was granted, that the action was brought to re-
cover compensation in damages for the arrest of the
plaintiff in the United States on a criminal charge arising
in this country. He was subsequently brought within
the jurisdiction of the courts, tried, convicted, sentenced
to 14 years transportation, and is now undergoing that
punishment at Portland.
Mr. McNamara now showed cause, and stated that
the action was a most important one, and its object
was to test the propriety of the defendant's conduct in
carrying out the treaty for the extradition of criminals
between this country and the United States. The de-
fendant had conducted himself most illegally in carrying
out his powers, having dragged the plaintiff across the
boundaries of several states in order to evade the suc-
cessive writs of habeas corpus which had been obtained
for the plaintiff with the view of effecting his release,
and exhibited a Colt's revolver to enforce it. It was
submitted that the rule ought not to be made absolute,
unless it was shown either that the plaintiff was actually
out of the jurisdiction of England, or was a bankrupt
or insolvent, and sued for other parties ; but neither of
the facts existed here. The plaintiff was in this country,
and was not likely to leave it ; and he was neither suing
for the crown or for the benefit of any assignees, the
cause of action not being one that passed out of the
plaintiff to other parties. The rule bad been moved on
the authority
of " Harvey v Jacobs" (1 B. and Ald.,
159). In that case, however, the plaintiff was actually
on board a convict ship on his way to Botany Bay,
and might be said, therefore, to be out of England.
Mr. Keating and Mr. Honeyman appeared in support
of the rule, but were not called on,
The court being of opinion that the plaintiff was
b ound to find security for costs under the circumstances,
a nd that the case could not be distinguished from that
o f " Harvey and Jacobs ;" a convict was, for all legal
p urposes out of the jurisdiction of this court, for its pro-
cess could not reach him.
Rule absolute.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius in Hilary Term at 'Westminster.
Before Mr. Baron Platt and a Special Jury.)
This was the first day of the third sittings during the
present term. The list contains 8 remanets and 20 new
causes. Of the latter 4 have been struck out, and of
the former 3 were marked for special juries, 2 of which
were disposad of to•day.

IMARD (AN INFANT) V. HOUSLEL—ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE!
OF A SURGEON.
Mr. Crowder and Mr. Kingdon were counsel for the
plaintiff. Mr. Butt and Mr. Needham represented the
defendant.
This was an action brought by the father as next
friend of the plaintiff to recover compensation in damages
for the suffering occasioned by the want of skill and mis-
conduct of the defendant as a medical man, which ren-
dered amputation of her leg necessary. The defendant
pleaded that he was not guilty of the alleged careless-
ness and want of skill, and also put another plea on the
record, that he had not been the medical attendant of
the plaintiff, on which, however, no issue was raised.
Mr. Crowder stated the case for the plaintiff, which
will be found in detail by the witnesses, called in sup-
port of the case.
Mrs. Susannah Seward examined—l am the mother
of the plaintiff. My husband is an artist. We reside
at No. 2, Foley-place, Portland-road. On the 28th
of June last, my child, who was then an infant of
nine months old, fell out of the bed and fractured her
leg. I immediately sent for Mr. Housley, the de-
fendant, and he came and did what he though neces-
sary. The next day he applied the bandages, which
reached to her toes. The following day he again called.
I then told him that the child's toes were cold, and
that she could not move them. He said she was going
on very well, and would move them soon. Two days
afterwards the toes got of a very dark red, and I drew
Mr. Housley's attention to this fact. He said she was
going on all right. The toes then got blue, This was
two or three days after the accident. For a week or
more he said she was going on all right. The blueness
was the same as that caused by a bruise. At the end of
seven or eight days I saw a blister on the toe and called
Mr. Housley's attention to it. He then snipped up a
bit of the bandage. It extended over the foot, exposing
the heel and toes. He said he would remove the ban.
dage if the toe got worse. He did not call the next day.
The next day I took the child to him. I did so because
she was worse. He said I wish I had seen it before. I
said I hope it will be all right, and he replied, "No,
doubtful." He removed the bandage as far as the leg
was discoloured. It was discoloured about half-way up.
He told me to apply linseed meal and bread poultices
for three or four hours, and to keep them warm. The
leg became much worse—more blisters came on it, the
toes got blacker, and a discharge with a very disagree-
able smell came on. 1 called Mr. Housley's attention
to these symptoms, and he said he would send me some-
thing to put in the poultices. On Saturday, the 16th,
he paid a visit, and that was the last he paid before Mr.
Erichsen, another surgeon, saw the child. On Tuesday,
the 17th, Mr. Cox, Mr. Housley's assistant, called, and
said Mr. Housley was out of town, but would be back
the next day. The next day, Monday, my husband
called in Mr. Erichsen.
Cross-examined—The accident occurred on the 28th
of June, and Mr. Housley came in five or six hours
afterwards. He covered the limb with cotton wool and
gutta percha and with small splints made out of a hat-
box. The child was at that time very healthy and stout.
The defendant called once or twice a day after the leg was
set for eight or nine days. I did not tell him it was not
necessary for him to call every day. I left that to his
discretion. Four or five days after the accident I asked
if the child might go out, and he said that going out would
not hurt it. I had a servant 18 or 19 years of age, who
took out the child. He did not tell me before he ordered
the poultices that the leg must be kept warm. He told
me so ten or twelve days after the accident.
The child's father was then called, and corroborated
the evidence given by his wife, in so far as came within
his own knowledge.
Mr. Erichsen, a surgeon of University College Hospi-
tal, and a lecturer on surgery in that college, was next
called. He stated that when he was called in to see the
child gangrene had taken place two inches below the
knee, and he at once said that amputation would be ne-
cessary. The child was too weak for the operation at
that time, but he ordered nourishing food, and in a few
days the child was sufficiently strong for the operation
to be performed. The leg was accordingly amputated
by him, with the concurrence of the defendant, an inch
and a quarter below the knee. He expressed it as his
decided opinion that the mortification was caused by the
tightness of the bandage, but could not undertake to say
whether it had been too tight at first, or had become so
afterwards.
Mr. Paget, another eminent surgeon, and professor of
physiology at St Bartholomew's Hospital, fully corrobo-
rated the medical opinion given by Mr. Erichsen.
The ease for the plaintiff having closed,
Mr. Butt addressed the jury on behalf of the defen-
ant in a most able speech, and then called the following
witnesses :
Mr. Housley, the defendant, said—l have practised as
a surgeon since 1837. I have known the plaintiff
about two years, and have attended the family during
that time. On the evening of the 27th of June I was
ealled in to attend to this accident. I found the infant
had fractured its thigh. It was a simple fracture. I put
the child on a pillow, and. composed the bones. That, in
my judgment, was ie proper thing to do. The next
morning I saw the child again. My assistant was with
me. I then set the limb. I took some cotton wool which I
applied next the skin over that some bandaging, includ-
ing. some chips cut the length of the thigh, over that I
took some gutta percha so as to obtain a model of the
limb, and secured that with another roller. That, in
my opinion,
was the proper and ordinary mode of ban-
daging a fractured limb. I made the bandage no tighter
than its own weight would cause it to be as I passed it
from one hand to the other. Mr. Cox was with me,
and assisted me. I saw the child again in the evening.
There was nothing in the appearance of the limb to cause
apprehension, and I merely requested that the limb
should be kept well covered. I saw the child twice on
the 29th, once at midnight, because I was going out of
town the next day. On the Ist and 2d of July I again
saw the child. Sometimes the toes were cooler, and
sometimes warm. I told the mother to keep the limb
better covered, and she told me she could not, for the
child was restless. I saw the child on the 4th and 6th,
and looked at the foot to see if any swelling had taken
place. Up to this time no swelling had taken place.
On the 9th the mother drew attention to a small vessicle
between the great and little toe, and I then slit up the
bandage to remove the tightness. Previous to that she
told me there was no necessity for my coming every day'
for the child wasbeing taken out and if she saw any,
thing she would bring it down to me. The child wa;
brought to me between nine and ten o'clock in the
evening of the 1 lth. When I reached home I found
Mrs. Steward and another person with the child. She
said she bad been alarmed by an alteration that had
taken place in the foot, which I understood her to Bay
she had noticed during the day. I saw there was a
great alteration in the colour of the foot, and I cut off
the bandage up to the knee, leaving nothing on but
that which was left on the thigh. I saw there was
great lividity of the limb, and I thought I should lose
a portion of the skin by sloughing only. but not such
mortification as would lead to amputation. I ordered
poultices, and that the child should have nutritious diet.
I told her to apply the poultices every three or four
hours. On the morning of the 12th I saw the child
again. The toes had recovered a good deal of their
natural colour, though they were swollen. I found
the poultices cold, and I said to the mother she must
have flannels wrung out in hot water if she could not
keep the poultices warmer. I saw the child every day
till the 16th. I continued up to that time the name
treatment. I also ordered wine and stimulants in the
shape of ammonia. This was at that time the proper
course of treatment. On the 16th, which was Saturday
I had occasion to go to East Grinstead professionally. ,
Before I left, I gave directions to my assistant to see
the child. The child was the last person I saw before
leaving town. I returned on the morning of Tuesday
the 19th. On that day I met Mr. Erichsen at the pa-
rents' house. The gangrene was then complete and the
line of separation, which I had not noticed on the Satur-
day, was then perfectly distinct. concurred with Mr.
Erichsen in the prudence of amputating the limb. I
had brought the child into the world, and attended it all
the time. I considered it always a weak and puny
child, and of a particularly pallid complexion. Its
powers of vitality were low. I assisted at the operation.
When the ligature was applied to the main artery, it