New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-05-20
SUIT FOR PR0FEs4I0NA1 SEK-
VICES.
Cost or RMe OF Circumcision.

Cost Of RMe Of Clreumcision.
In the Sixth District Court yesterday the
case of Rosenth.ll vs. Meyers was decided
by Judge Cooley.
In this case pl.intiff, Rosenthall, brought
suit for the recovery of one Thousand o1l-
lars for being employed to perform me
operation of circumcision on two israe.ls,sn xas
children residing in BrOwnsVl!le, Ie4as'
and Matamoros, Mexico. The points OF IN
terest to the Jewish people involved IN this
controversy are:
|. That this decision forms precedent
for the legal right of persons skilled IN the
art to recover compensation Ior tneir Scr
vices
2. That person residing at another point
sending a mandatory heir to ahother 70
send a certain person nance 20 perform .ne
operation, is not bound if the mandatory
disobeys his instructions, and sends IN the
place thereof another party, and In sucn
case the mandatory becomes personally
responsible for the employment.
8. That in fixing the value the rule Is
applied that where several witnesses testify
as to the amount. the one fixing the lowest
amount will be taken as the standard.
We publish the opinion OF 'uoge 0ooies
in full:
It seems to me he can not claim any i'm
LID uulLy do oSCAGS 90 AN NAN AS' -
the terms of the letter.
He took upon himself the responslblIlty OF
not CO implying with the terms o! the Ietter,
and therefore made himself liable.
In relation to the custom OF charging 1or
these operations, the testimony shows there
ia no regular tariff ofprices. But 1t Is equaliy
well shown that payment, though not lot
mally pressed in the form OF mercansne
transaction, is invariably expected ana sna'
oh fonHQrpN and AC.
cepted. There is no regular price; II varies
according to time, place, distance and
means of the parties.
This is q suit for services and expenses
for going to Mexico and Texas, to perform
| the ceremony OF circumcision on some
children there.
The defendant, Meyers claims that he did
not employ the plainuff. He says ne was
| written by friend OF his to seno nun al
operator named Hackwald, and tnat ne
produced this letter to the plaintiff, ano
upon that letter the plaintiff went. He
saws he did not hold himself out IS habie
| for the expenses incurred in going there. OF
| for the value of the services; and IL l!
allowed also by the defense that II ne Ole
| intend to make himself liable, no pecunlarl
| compensation is allowed in this case.
1t seems to me plain that Meyers did no
comply with the request made Dy MS 1rieno
in that letter.
| Had he complied with that request, ~
would be only acting as the agent of thi
man who wrote to him and would not b'
liable.
Meyers was requested to send certail
| individual, but he did not send that lndlvid
ual; he sent another, and exhibited to hin
this letter as his authority.
Had he sent the man Hackwald, whom h
was requested to send, that would hav
been entirely different.
In this case the plaintiff claims thou
sand dollars. My impression is, this CLAIM
is too much. The testimony OF DR.. Held
| ingsfelder, who seems to have had grea
deal of experience in these matters, show
he would have gone there and pertorme
mate of DR.. Heidpgsfelder, and give th
| Judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $500
Hawkins l. Thorpe FOR plaintiff. Cotton
| Levy for defendant.