The Delaware register, or, Farmers', manufacturers' & mechanics' advocate. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1828-1829, 1829-07-04

The Lac and the Testisony.-A term of the Circuit
Court recommended in this city Monday of last week.
Judge Due presiding One of the which for
trial unquestonsby of general interest We aude to the
case of Gibbs M CseIdn We give very brief state
reht Of some of its principal features col
Iect the facts at this time The plaintiff several months
since, thrown from wagon by the upsetng of it, and
by the fall his leg broken below the knee. The defen
dant physician residing in Nassau in this county, of
spectacle standing, and of emnence surgeon,
called upon to take the proper for restoring the
plaintiff the his lmbsor rather the limb to the
of the plaintiff The fracture is healed but the leg which
has been injured somewhat shorter than the ohr hence
the plaintiff crippled.
with malpractice surgeon There two counts
charging him with want of skill, the other with negligence
and nattention to his patient The plaintiff had compound
obque fracture of both bones of the Leg below the knee
defendant called to reduce the acurehe did reduce
properly stated by all the witnesses both sides, and
placed the limb extension box, called, applying per-
extension The counsel for the plaintiff placed their
principal reliance for success, showing that defendant
liable for of skill in placing the limb in this extended
position, with permanent extension They endeavored to
show that ered position of the knee joint the best
and only proper position of the limb in of this kind
Three witnesses Drs Anderson, Spoor and Croswel
examined who stated as their opinion, that the extended
position of the limb improper and eprehenshe and that
the other position mentioned was the only proper Drs
Hale March, Wmg and others, gave decided preference
the mode made Of by the defendant in this case, and
That limb when treated in the Hexed position invariably
shortened Medical authors, the physicians all agreed in
tesyng, differ in opinion the modes of treatment.
This being the case, the suggested to the counsel for
the plaintiff that this point need not be further urged
would not be for the court jury to decide upon surgical
question which surgeons themselves, the most eminent
their profession disagreed This point therefore, given
up, and it admitted that the fracture reduced in
scientific and surgical manner
The plaintiff then introduced testimony to show negi-
gence of skill the subsequent The
crippled state of the plaintiff the subject of much in
curry On the part of the defendant commended first,
that due skill and every attention applied to
heal the plaintiff and secondly if the crippled state of the
plaintiff attributable to any unavoidable cause, it was to
the conduct of the plaintiff HIMSELF neglecting refusing
70 follow the directions Of the defendant as his surgeon;
whereby the pursued by the defendant peven
ted from producing their ordinary and natural effects. Many
witnesses mnutey and carefully examined both sides
relation these points, The examination of the testimony
commenced Thursday 1lh, and concluded Tuesday
by the COURT occupied the evening of Tuesday and the fore
of Wednesday, The jury retired and about half
hour returned to the court with verdict of sir cents the
defendant
Counsel for the plaintiff, Messrs Darling, p Cushman
and Huntington, all of this cy for the defendant, Messrs
d. Buel, of this city, HI. p Hunt of Lansngburgh, and