Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1861-02-08
70, tn, osIoci Democrat.

land lar. Cleveland, OhlO: NHTco
Eiweli & CO., Publishers.
The author OF this work possessed pecu
liar qualifications for HE task. lilo had
made both the profession. Of Medicine and
Law objects Of special study. lilo become
practitioner OF both had thoroughly
acquainted himself With the philosophy and
principles Of each. and Vas, therefore. com
pe,ent 70 g,vo medical evidence ito du'
weight in courts Of Law. aud apply to u
correct rules Of legal practice.
Tho commeuda,ion, Of this work are M
merou.. from both the legal and medical
professions. They are not confined to Amer
lea They come from gentlemen OF The
highest dignity and tho greatest learning
at home and abroad. William u. Carpen'
ter, Of London. Professor OF Medical Juris
prudence. says OF this work -" know o
no instance m which the combination o.
Legal and Medical knowledge has been o
remarkably shown as it has in Mr. El~ell''
treatment Of tho subjects he has under
taken" Prot. Walter Claiming, OF Dos
ton, says -" I have had the great pleasure
90 rad your work on Malpractice and Med
zeal Evidence, and now address you to oder
you nv Kind thank. Tor this important adj
d,,ion to our professional literature.
Prof. I. ". Gordon. NJ. d., OF Cleveland
ay.: :" lie ba. taken the truthful word'
Of David Paul Brown ~ . motto { docio'
Who knows nothing OF Law and lawycl
Who knows nothing Of medicine arc deficient
IN essential requisites OF their respective
professions. } and then dedicated hrs work
To the young men o. the United States en-
gagged in The study Of Medicine and Law. ,wc
noble professions, designed 10 rcsulap the
health and conduct Of mankind, and which
should ever emulate each other IN the de-
,clopucn, aud practical application Of the
principles Of truth upoa which both ARE
founded This work should b. in the
hands OF every 'sudeu, and Practitioner Of
medicine and law"
| think ihi. !, clearly work Of no orii.
nary character. I, !, concI.o aud porspc.
uous in style, thorough IN research. and
reliable IN its statements. IL, reference q
aIjudiciicl cases on almos, all subjects oi
Medical Jur.prudence. will adOri great
assistance 10 the physician and lawyer. Ia
chapter. on Nalprae,ico and Moral in'an''
twill correct many OF tho errors Of com
munitic. a, we'll a. Of ihU.c IN Official sta.
ton. After thu, commanding this work
generally. and introducing TO the reader
the commentator, Of Others. nigh, stop,
but inl.puch a. IL contains = case Of local
interest, on malpractice. this is a very fl
time 10 alluic ~ 10 Tho case ~ that o!
Howard '. Grover. This case excited much
iniere., some eighteen year. ago, aud re-
suited IN q heavy verdict against DR. John
Grover. OF Bethel, an eminent. but now
aged physician. who. in his declining years
and after q rclatious lawsuit, may 10 glad
TO find and know tina, the profession regard
him a. victim 70 persecution or injustice,
rather than professional delinquent,
DR.. Grover performed the operation OF
amputa,iOn on Mr. Howard, IN isiJ, for
disease OF tbs thigh bone. The bono not
healing, another Operation ~a'.required not
long ai,erward. The ground Of complaint
was tina, DR.. Grover va. guilty Of NAL.
practice because he did not perform the
operation higher up. 50 as TO remove al the
diseased parts Another operation wa'
required and VAS performed, at .ub'e.
luen, time. by another surgeon, aud the
whole LIMB was rsmoved At tho thigh pint
AZ the trial. in Portland, the jury broush.
in u ,criic, OF S2O?j. Dr Grover mo,eC!
ior new trial on the ground OF excessive
damages aud because the verdict was against
the evidence. On ,hi. motion Wells, Jus.
tce, gave the opinion Of the Court. lie
ay.:
Il seems. therefore, highly probable
that the whole bone was diseased, and that
nothing .hor, OF IL. entire removal woaid
have saved the life Of the patient. II such
was the fact, i, was Of little Importance a.
what precise par, Of the limb fellow the
thigh pn, the operation was performed :
We, damage, agains, him have been render.
ell. no, because be failed TO remove the
whole limb, bu, that he should have removed
few more inches Of IL.
"Thc practice Of surgery Is indispensable
20 the community, and while 'anase'
should be paid Tor negligence and careless
ness. surgeons should not be deferred from
tho pur,ul, OF their professions by intern.
peratc and extravagant ,erdicts. The CON-
penation 70 surgeon. in the country Is
small in comparison with wha, is paid in
cities for similar services. and an error OF
judgment Is visited with severe penalty
which takes from one u large share OF the
surplus esrnlngs Of long life.
We are constrained 10 believe that the
Jury must have been aetuated by some
undue influence and that justice requires
q reduction ofthe verdict. bot we have 80
much reluctance to interfere with It. that
wo will allow I. to remain If the plaintiff
will reml, $500 Of it,"
Upon this decision Mr.. Elwell remarks
"The Cour, admits that the alleged fault
VI the defendant consisted in an error q
Judcmm, in no, removing more OF the limb.
H.. Ii 4. LIZ M, n,n..na caHialn thai