The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-09-02
Marine Court.
Before Hon. Judge Maynard, without Jury.
ALLEGED MALPRACTICE OF AN ocULrsr.

Arc. le-fAomas Courtney us. Lrda B. Hsnfsrson--
This was an action damage, for injuries sus
ained by the plaintiff by unsklfrl treatment Ia the
administration OF remedies for OF disease or the
eyes The plaintiff had been scted with some disorder
In the eyes, and was admitted 10 the New York Eye In
Urinary and amer treatment from that Institution he with
drew from and placed himself under the care Of do
fendant who promised to him FOR 80. He was at
tended for two or three mouths until nnding that hc was
growing worse and finally became 90 blind that he could
rot attend the defendants place OF business he returned
to tho Eye Innrmary, but was not st The time
able to distinguish night from day
william Courtney, lad Of fifteen years gave tesmo
ny the effect that he used 10 mpany his uncle the
Plaintiff Dr. Hcnderscn's who prescribed for him. On
cross alton he said that his unces eyes very
lad when be went 10 The dcendant he bad been TO other
dsctors before, and also TO the Eye innrmary ,.
operate on the eye Of plaintiff; the doctor had :
case Of instrumen ns and he took like lance with
a little hook ON the end Of u; he cut the ball OF
the eve with H. and then opened the eye 10 insert the
hook state how far he put tie hook In he ope
rated both the eyes, cutting them under the iids he
tue eyes Of the plaintiff did not take notice of the color
Of the powder; panuas eyes 6ed pro,ssely after sne
washed out; Hrst plaintiff said he fe very bad and
complained Of pain, but about an hour or 50 be said be
ray the doctor dollar heard tho doctor say that ne
Lad great hopes that Of the eyes would recover but
that he had not much opinion OF the other.
Dciendsnt's counsel be woui prove that this was
the first time the doctor at the rantds house
Witness name Butler, 10 TIE course 0i as testmonyf
saed that the defendant cured his boy OF sore eyes, and
y 3ascquence OF that he recommended him 70 the plain
ud.
c. r. Agrew, surgeon OF the New York Eye Innrmary,
deposed that he attended the plaintiff for nearly year
:. that institution he came there IN september or octo
Der last; he had been thtre before; he hal sim.
ple inflammation o the external membrane or
orur covering OF the eyes; prescribed for that dis
ease and during my attendance on him hs condition vM
one or gradual Improvement he could see when he came
Re bad some vision, and better when he lett when
be came the disease bad not reached The transparent por
ton OF the eye but had simply affected The external mem
brane the membrane surrounding the transparent part
was red and swollen giving rise TO ow Of wstery mat
TAR when he e us this external redncss bad subsdcd
In measure but he had a. much dread OF light ~ be
iore II he had continued the Institution he would pro-
LsbIy have recovered his sight the dread OF light i'm
reired The vision: he would probably have recovered,
although Of his age (sI years) never entirely 70
osvcrs, he came back 10 The Institution some time aer;
Il was then 10 all incnts and purpose bind when be
urescnted himself at the institution In July stated his
case 10 pr Buck and decidedly Of opinion that
il was the result Of irritating applications made 10 the
eye.
the plaintiff bad contrary TO the directions and advice Of
the deendaut worked a. stevedore In the hold OF =
vessel and that such labor Injurious 10 his sight
ard tended 10 impair the benefits Of the medical treat
msnt
Decision reserved.