The Sun.
London, England, 1861-06-19 00:00:00

LAW INT_

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
(Before Mr. Baron Martin and a Special Jury.)
GATTIE V. lIALPORD.

This was an action of damages for breach of covenant
and want of professional skill and neglect of professional
duty as an accoucheur, in the confinement and delivery of
the plaintiff's wife at Barnes, in Surrey, in May, 1860.
The misconduct complained of was the use of instruments
in the delivery without additional assistance, and the non-
use of chloroform as agreed on.
Sergeant Shee opened the case for the plaintiff, and from
his statement it appeared that Mrs. Gattie was the mother
of four children, and had been previously delivered by in-
struments and chloroform ; special attention and provision
was made for this delivery, but on the present occasion
there was no necessity for using instruments without as-
sistance, by which she suffered severely, and the loss of her
child. She afterwards suffered cramp in her legs and feet for
many months,and is not yet recovered. She is suffering from
paralysis arising from cold, benumbness, and want of sen-
sation in her legs, and injury done to the sciatica! nerve in
the delivery. The learned counsel called witnesses to prove
the contract and total disregard to it. He could not recover
compensation for the loss of her child, but for the suffering
and pain and expense she was put to on account of the
defendant's negligence and want of skill.
The plaintiff, Mr. Guthrie, a clerk in the bullion office,
was called and examined as a witness. He called defendant
to attend his wife, and told him she had two previous con-
finements; she was highly nervous and sensitive, and he
said that in case an operation had to be performed he gave
me a note to Mr. Langdale for his assistance, and her arm
was placed in a proper position by an instrument which he
gave me, and the shild was afterwards dead born. The
witness explained the proceedings, and said his wife
suffered great agony. He explained the opera-
tions on previous occasions, which were successful.
He minutely detailed the whole circumstances to the de-
fendant, and notwithstanding that he undertook to attend,
and the result was fatal. I explained to him the reason
why I wanted a first-rate medical attendance, and I en-
quired if I could get additional attendance, and he said it was
so small a place that he could not get additional attendance,
but he could do it himself, and had no objections to use
chloroform, but if the case was difficult. I wished another
medical man, Dr. Stow, to be sent for. Defendant said
he was dead, but others could be got. His fee was to be £5
ss. for the whole month, including after symptoms, requir-
ing little or no attention ; and he said 14 days was sufficient.
I said that was only half of the month, and offered him £4
45., subject to my wife's approval, and he went to see her.
In the evening of the 14th May I went to see defendant, and
told him Mrs. Gattie had been rather unwell in the morn•
ing, and her pains wore rapidly increasing in succes-
sion, and the child might be born in the night.
I offered him my bed, which he declined, but he would
attend. She was in great pain during the night, and I saw
his assistant about half-past six in the morning and told
him she was in active labour, and asked Mr. Halford to
come immediately. He came at eight o'clock, and was in-
troduced into her bedroom. About 10 o'clock he said he
could give her a little relief if he had his forceps by him ;
he said he did not know whether he would use
them, but that he would like to have them ; and he
wrote a note to his assistant to give them to me, and I said
if he was to use instruments he would require medical
assistance, and ho said no, he was only going to give relief,
and I asked him if he would use chloroform, and he said no
there was no necessity for it. I got two pair of forceps and
gave them to the defendant in the adjoining room. He
then used the Instruments, and said he thought he could
give some relief, and he applied one blade and she
said he was cutting her, and he said we do not
wish to hurt you, but give you some relief. I then
asked if any one, Mr. Margate or any other, would be of
. any assistance, and he said " No, we don't want any
meddlers here." lie failed to give relief, and I left the
room, „leaving him and the monthly nurse there. I re-
turned in about a quarter of an hour, she was in excruciat-
ing agony, and in cramp. I asked him if she was in any
danger, and he said no, but she might suffer some
hours. I asked if he had any doubt about the child
being born alive, and he said " No." I was
in the adjoining room when the child was boru. He
said she was in great pain and wanted my assistance. She
wanted chloroform. I did not go in. She was in sleep
then. He said, from the nature of her cries, that the child
would not be born for an hour, and the nurse said the child
was born, and produced it. He went in and lifted Mrs.
Gattie from the floor, and put her into bed about one o'clock,
and in five minutes afterwards the child was born, and he
expressed his surprise that it was dead, and tried to bleed
it and inflate the lungs.
The case is expected to last the whole day.

SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before the Common Sergeant.)
AN AMATEUR DETECTIVE.-FRIGILTFUL PERJURY

SOMEIVIIERE.-BRITTAIN V. MORYOSEPT.

This was an action to recover a sum of money for looking
after a prisoner.
Plaintiff and two witnesses stated that about 15 months
ago defendant asked plaintiff to look after a man who had
robbed defendant, and plaintiff was promised ss. per day to
do the work. _ _ .

—Mr. Buchanan, for defendant, cross-examined the wit-
nesses, but they stated circumstantially and without varia-
tion conversations at particular times and places.
Mr. Buchanan called defendant, who positively denied
employing plaintiff, and flatly contradicted every statement
made by him, adding that be had given plaintiff in charge
for stealing a walking stick, and that plaintiff had been
discharged by the inspector at Spital-square, upon giving
up the stick.
This, in turn, plaintiff denied, and said he never took a
stick and never gave one back.
The inspector not being present,
M r. Buchanan commented upon the evidence of the plain-
tiff and witnesses, but his lordship found for the plaintiff,
with costs.

TWENTY DAYS.-CAUTION TO DEBTORS.-PARKINS V

TILL.

This was a judgment summons, and defendant's wife
pleaded that her husband had the gout.
Mr. Buchanan stated that the greatest trouble had been
taken by the officer to serve this summons. Night and day
had he worked, and at length was successful. Now excuses
were made, and upon a former occasion, although plaintiff
was much afflicted, defendant subjected him to great

annoyance.
His Lordship committed defendant for 20 days, where-
upon the wife flew into a violent passion, and. rushed out of
court threatening to commit plaintiff to Nowgate.