The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-09-01
Marine Court.
Before Hon. Judge Mccarthy.

SUIT TO RECOVER BACK FEES AND cor
AUcTIONEERs. 'oioSS fh'
Acc. 2e.-Robn Cvystie, = r.. n. A,.Ao,. : nh,
Van Waeenen and al me defendant. Van wacorsr
sues ~ sa'eh stand. In October last certain lots y
s'a'0n n put up at auction in the Exchange, 4
pe' lying to Van Wagenen the defendant Blocker acnI
as auctioneers. TIE plaintiff bid $4,000 on eight LOTS
which were knocked down TO him, and upon which ID
paid $3.50 per centsge and $50 for auctioneer's fee
taking separate receipts for the The vendor I'd
fused perfect the tite hence this suit to bac
bis money. The defendant, Van Wagenen not served
with process and consequently was not before thl
Court The Court held that the defendant Blocker wal
bound to pay back the amount received as commiseon
after notice to his principal. but that he was entitled u
retain the amount paid fees as was received for se
vices &C ualy rendered. and the plaintiffs remedy for TIL
same was against The principal. AS 70 The question
The statute regulating costs In this Court expressly pr
vdes that in any where the plantf recovers ove
800, he shall recover costs. Judgment Tor plaintiff
$Aol o. and costs.
ACTION AGAINST AN EXPRESS COMPANY yoR NEG
LIGENcE.
Brto1l rs The Union Empress Company. TIE assignd
Of the plaintiff on The th OF March, delivered 10 defend
ants 10 this city quantity OF oysters, valued at S25,
be delivered at Chicago aud on that day b. ZEN Tor there
be arrived there, and after waiting some t~o or thre
weeks without getting any Information about the oysters
came back From the evidence on the part OF the dd
fence II appeared that en- the sh of March the car Il
which the oysters shipped passed through Aban]
its way West but that II blocked up the roa
the Suspension bridge for several days, owing 10 tn
the roads open time lost in forwarding then
On, and that tho oysters reached there the day ate
not common carriers that they bound TO us
ordinary aud dit zence In sending the goods
that they had done so. Judgment for defendants
Before Hon. Judge Maynard.
ACTION FOR NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. TO PRAC
TITIONERs.
Courtney Us. Henda soa--The plaintiff Is 81 years
age Of good.habits has worked foreman year
las narap ho oit
with bad eyes; went to the Eye Infrmary RENAME
there from six to eight weeks when he induced b.
friend Of the defeno leave the Eye lnGrmAry an
put himself under the Defendants treatment. There ha
been gradual Improvement Of his eyes from soon ate
he entered the Eye nrmary until he left, and that i'm
provement continued for three weeks alter he e
doubt being the result Of the reatmer; he receive
at the Eve Infrmary-when they began to grow worse
He continued under the defendants treatment until July
(about three MONTHS and the defendant performed .
operation on his eyes, and put some kind OF powder ID
TO them When he first put himself under the ceiendant
treatment he could 60 there alone: he soon became
blind he had 10 be led there by little boy The pair
till returned to the Eye nlrmsry IN july bnt his vso
was gone, never to return Or. Agnew deposed that
has no doubt the plaintiff Is eyes would have &C
well II ne had remained in the Eye ln6rmary
or been under good treatment outside. DryAgnew an
DR.. Buck both holding positions In the Eye innrmary-
the only physicians who testified in relation 10 the trea
ment-have doubt that the plaintiffs eyes would hav
recovered under proper treatment
They both gave history Of their practice in diseases
the eye which is different from the defendants pracct
testified TO and shown by card, which Is admitted
be bis The defendant offered TO prove by OF pei
that they had had bad eyes, and been treated fc
them by the defendant and got WELL or improved whc
was ruled by the Court. The defendants couns'
raised several points, but the second is sufficient
state-That error in judgment is not NAL practice
The Court held that to be good law, when applied
skilled in anatomy, surgery or physics but this
it had application IN this case; that the defent
ant, knowing nothing Of anatomy surgery or physics
could have no judgment in the matter. Tho la
contemplated Judgment founded upon skill and knox
ledge In these sciences. That man who would ho
himself to the world doctor and ocuis viii
out diploma, without any knowledge Of these sciences
and under such false pretences obtain patient, an
tinkerpg with the most delicate OF all the o.
Rans, the eye, must be reckless indeed An error
Judgment Of Q man skilled in q particular calling d M
NAL practice, unless II 10 gross error. But error
judgment, in science, Of a man unskilled in thi
science or such a thing can be) Is NAL practice.
other words person attempting to practice, in physi
surgery, without fret having obtained knowledge
such science liable for all the damage that Is tho n
suit his practice. have no doubt the plaintiff To-
his vision through the Defendants treatment, and thi
the treatment the result OF ignorance his par
Judgment for the plaintiff, $780, allowance, &C. Sl2.