The Sun.
London, England, 1846-06-27 00:00:00

'^!:',•iitt*- hVZ'Oittou

QUEEN'S BENCH,-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings at Nisi Prius, before Mr. Justice IVIGuTuAlst and
a Special Jury.)
IMPORTANT TO THE MEDICAL PROFESSION.
FARRAR t. WILDBORE.

This was an action brought by Mr. Farrar, a master
cabinet-maker, residing in Curtain-road, Shoreditch, against
Mr. Wildbore, a surgeon of extensive practice in Shoreditch,
for damages arising from the unskilful treatment of a frac-
ture of one of the bones of the wrist, called the radius. The
damages were laid at 1,0004
The Attorney-General, Mr. Sergeant Shee, and Mr. Char-
nock, appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr. Watson, Mr.
Jervis, and Mr. J. Hill, for the defendant.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL opened the case by a detail of
the particulars that had led to the present action, and which
he intended to prove in evidence. He said the plaintiff was
a respectable tradesman, residing in Curtain-road, Shoreditch,
who happened, on the 6th of April, 1844, to meet with
a serious misfortune in the fracture of the radius
bone of his wrist. This caused him to call
in Mr. Wildbore, the defendant in the present action. Mr.
Wildbore could not, from the largeness of his practice, at-
tend personally, but his assistant, Mr. Gillott, attended in
his stead. The fracture was set, and the defendant's assistant
continued his attendance for six weeks, when his attendance
was no longer continued. Shortly after this, the plaintiff
finding that his arm was not in the condition which he ex-
pected, called in another surgeon, who, on an examination,
intimated that the treatment he had received
was improper, and that the arm could not be
restored to its original strength and usefulness,
In the course of time the plaintiff, finding that his arm could
not be employed in any kind of heavy work connected with
his business, and being advised, from most respectable me-
dical authority, that he had good ground of action for im-
proper and unskilful treatment, lie decided to bring the pre-
sent action. By the witnesses he should call, both medical
and otherwise, he should establish the fact that the plaintiff
had been improperly treated, and that he had since been
unable to attend to his business as he had done before.
The Learned Gentleman concluded by calling his witnesses.

The plaintiff's son and daughter, and several other per-
sons residing in the neighbourhood, were called to prove the
accident, the attendance of Wildbore's assistant, and that
the witness, since the treatment of the fracture, had not been
able to use his arm as he had before.
It came out in the cross-examination of some of these
witnesses that Mr. Farrar had used his arm in sawing since
the fracture had taken place, and that Mr. Wildbore had been
called in to attend on Mrs. Farrar at least eight months
after the alleged unskilful treatment of the arm.
Mr. Gill, the medical gentleman who was called in subse-
quently to Mr. Wildbore, deposed that the arm was in a
great measure incapable of use in any kind of heavy work,
and that its present state had arisen from the unskilful treat-
ment which had been bestowed on the fracture.
Professor Partridge, Mr. Merrit, surgeon of Leadenhall-
street, and Mr. Barron followed on the same side. They had
been called in to examine the wrist of plaintiff, and were of
opinion that the treatment employed by the defendant was
not the best that might have been employed in such a case,
and that it had been evidently very unsuccessful.
In cross-examination they admitted that there was consi-
derable difference of opinion as to the best treatment to be
pursued in such cases. They could not say positively that
the treatment was unskilful. In any case of fracture, such
as the one under consideration, they did not believe that an
arm ever became as strong as it was before.
This closed the case for the plaintiff.
Mr. JERVIS opened the case for the defence in a speech of
some length, in which he denied the allegation of an unskil-
ful or improper treatment, which he would prove by the
most
raisgyt
making
anaaniiiidyni gentlemennetoghnnteeaptiorfosim
l fin the medical profession. While
he would prove that the treatment had been right and proper,
he would also show that any damage that had since arisen
tsouethheaafrrmactoufrtehaeftperlaiitnthiffadbheeyaolnedd, lwvahsateawusoeudldbyretshueltplfaroinm.
combined
ieubin ed plaintiff,
which
tt h e
wo
tehtuereu,lnaandnotwreactoemdplianinteldie
oufsubayl
part of his case, had arisen from
itohoo beaornleysannaecessarily joined together,
the way
by the plaintiff.
iatn:
tjiwiemschetpipr improper er use of his arm. The case was
improper use of the arm

The witnesses were then called for the defence.
Mr. Gillott, the assistant of Mr. Wildbore, who attended
Mr. Farrar, but also is now surgeon on his own account, on
the first witness examined—lle described in detail the naturew
of the accident, and the particulars of the treatment he had
pursued. It was a case of simple fracture, and he pursued
the system of Mr. Lawrence, or the straight system of effect-
ing the union of the bone. lie splintered and bandaged the arm.
In about five weeks he discharged the arm as cured. It was then.
r
as perfect as was usual in any similar case of fracture. It
as i
hadt
had been all the mobefore th e ations, thougccidenth, of course, it was not 80 strong
The witness was cross-examined at some length, but
nothing of material importance was elicited.
Mr. Robert Liston said .n to- he had examined the arm of
pie
liain teivffid3,e'enseteerdoafykarn. and
pro-
jection of the ulna, it was a case that might happen
from the most skilful treatment. He had seen many
Gillott.agal v
cases of the same kind, and some much worse,
Idajyth. He
egarhdad also heard
to the t
after very good treatment. The arm in its present state
seemed a very good arm, and appeared to have been used a
great deal. Anything bad in it might have been occasioned
by improper care on the part of the plaintiff. He thought
the treatment of the defendant very proper treatment. He
had heard the evidence of Mr. Gillott, and he thought it
very good.