The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-30 00:00:00

SINGULAR ACTION.

A curious action was lately bryught at the Greenwich
County Court by Mr. Richard Thomas Freeman, surgeon-
dentist, of the Upper Lewisham-road, Deptford, against
a male patient named Howell, to recover £1 for pro-
fessional attendance and damage done to property while
having chloroform administered to him. Mr. Pook,
solicitor, of Laurence Pountney-hill, City, attended for
the defendant. It appeared that on the afternoon of
Sunday, the lst December, the defendant, while suf-
fering from neuralgia, waited by appointment upon
the plaintiff to have two teeth extracted. Chlo-
roform was administered, and whilst under the effects
of its second stage the defendant was stated to
have jumped from his chair and to have behaved so
violently as to upset a table, to spoil some books with ink,
and to damage some instruments. At the urgent request
of the defendant the plaintiff consented again to apply
chloroform and to perform the necessary operation,
which was effected ; but the defendant having refused
to pay either for the plaintiff's professional attendance
or the damage occasioned, the present action was
brought. In cross-examination by Mr. Pook, the
plaintiff denied that just previous to the ad-
ministering of the chloroform he placed in the hands
of the defendant, whom he admitted to be a nervous,
excitable, and timid man, " Philips's Life of Curran,"
and pointed to a passage in it on " The cold, dark
grave," for him to read, it being contended by Mr
Pook that, according to the authority of Dr. scow, it
was necessary, before administering chloroform, to allay
the patient's fears, so that the chloroform might be
inhaled while in a regular and tranquil state of mind, but
which the reading of that which had been referred to was
not calculated to produce. The defendant was sworn, and
said that after first administering the chloroform the
plaintiff left the room when he asked him not to do so,
and that a enia.,le who was present told the plaintiff that
he had forgotten to loosen his (defendant's) collar, and was
neglecting to attend to the state of his pulse. The plain-
tiff left the room, and on his return, having felt faint, de
fendant asked him not to admillster any more chloro-
form, but seeing he had a bottle containing it in his
hand, he succeeded in gathering strength to get up and
to strike at the plaintiff, when the table was upset, and
that then the plaintiff seized him by the throat and threw
him over the chair, afterwards administering the chloro-
form and extracting his teeth. He bad since suffered from
a severe alio* to the nervous system, having been upwards
of two hours under the influence of chloroform. Although
the female who was present was admitted to be the plaintiff's
housekeeper, she was not called by him as a witness, nor
did the defendant call a gentleman who accompanied him
to the plaintils surgery and remained during the opera-
tion. His Honour gave judgment in favour of the plaintiff
with costs.

IMPORTANT QUESTION AFFECTING RAILWAY
TRAVELLERS.—The judge of the Manchester County Court
has just given judgment in the case of Hall v. the Lanca-
shire and Yorkshire Railway Company. It was an action
against the company for refusing to give the plaintiff a
contract ticket. Mr. Hall, being in the habit of travelling
daily on the defendants' line between Manchester and Om
ham, used a half-yearly contract ticket. On the 30th of
June last his ticket for the half-year expired. On the Ist
of July, having previously applied in writing, plaintiff
made application to the clerk for a new one. He was told
that it was not yet ready, and that the old one should be
us:A until it was. Plaintiff used it (applying more than
meal time for the 113 W ticket) until the oth of
July, v.-I ea he was stopped by the ticket collector at the
/Ides Platting Station, taken before the siiperintnident,
and charged with travelling on the line without a ticket.
Ills explanation was not accepted, and the upshot of the
whole was that the company absolutely refused to give
him the ticket for which be had applied, and they threat-
ened to take legal proceedings against him. As they did
not do so, however, he brought this action to raise the
question of the legality of their refusal to give him a ticket.
Ills Honour, in his judgment, laid down that railway corn-
amrs were bound to carry all alike, and not to subject any
articular person to any undue or unreasonable prejudice
Or advantage. Mr. Hall had been refused his ticket, and
put to disadvantage as compared with his fellows, without
any reason at all. Judgment would therefore be given for
Ni4n, with costs.

cnc,-! in tito