The Republican journal., 1870-05-05


true condition of the eye at the time the application,
whatever it was was made by the defendant.
senger or message was sent to cali the Dr. the third
time he the eyes and testimony has been introduc
that material perhaps is question for to
determine. But you will judge, gentlemen. from the
He rt appeaton whether or not the would
would not be likely to be sent by the plaintiff or his
or not the defendant had found the eyes of the plaintiff
in condition the Both day of May and had made
if his duty to cali as soon as the fourth June without
an invitation or with one; whether he went with or
according to his testimony, visit the plaintiff and make
an application of some substance to the eye, both the
Both of May and the 4th of June.
Now, when he called prescribe for the plaintiff,
what the requirements Of law in regard to hs duty
skin in that case ordinarily possessed by Physicians,
Surgeons good standing in this vicinity Did he do so
perimentay, unskifuiIy negligently, and reekessy
that from that moment hencefort he has been deprived
clan; and terrible calamity fall upon the patient:
Who Is right upon that point Your inquiry would
with regard to the true condition Of the eye eyes
when the doctor was called, your inquiry will be- what
Was such application surgeon or physician of
ordinary skill would have made, under like crcumstan-
ces an improved condition OF the eye aggravaon
of the difficulty the doctor would have been absolved
vded he does his duty such have described yon
that it The By burden is the n nt do satisfy a
improper, unusual unauthorized by good practice. And
what is the evidence
1t said on the part the plaintiff that the defendant
is met here by amost significant and as the plaintiff
claims most conclusive fact that the effect of the medi
forever and that therefore you should be very slow
conclude that that was good practice Now the plain
tiff was blind when the @ Dr.. called TINS theory Of the
ance in this that should ascertain as well as
what the ras o nj & Eye when 1.-THE the
duce the effect whatever it was that is now apparent
suffering, mentally and physically speaking, to the
plaintiff perhaps you hardly have any question;
datey followed tie application Of medicines and
for you to judge whether occasioned by the ap
the painti agonze and suffer was he deprived of his
sleep, and mis- OF his sleep on the first OCCASION
stration OF the medicine by the Dr.? How was that
You have the testimony coming from himself, and his
tan in reference ref to the first application sec how that
was What the actual effect produced by the medi-
w npped d on Ms par t Of the
fendant, that this is very strange procedure the
that suspected Of having failed in the discharge
of his duty to this patient, from the plaintiffs wife,
threaten him with suit some year and half or two
years afterwards and that is apparent from other tes
MS as tine T the idea ow Of x st
If was, gentlemen after thought is strange
that should not be discovered before But tor you
to discover how it
1t is said that no complaint made Boston by he
plaintiff that he then stated that he got mortar in his
sight. No accusation was made against the attending
ply sican or surgeon You have the testimony here of
trs Howes herself in regard to the matter. Whether
these Of account or not is for you alone to deter
mine, and whether if she made statement it made
understandiugly, otherwise it is for you to determine
and whether if made understandingly this plaintiff is to
be predjudiced by her declaration and whether further
if made understandngly it should be conclusive as
against the right of the plaintiff to maintain this action
whether the fact that she did not charge and The plaintiff
did not charge this defendant with ma practice, unit
that time should be regarded important not is for
you to determine exclusively II there was malpractice
they did not discover it at ALL till within year after
wards. then this defendant would be liable.
1t Is proper for to consider the testimony of Mrs.
Howes. She says, examination, that she first
concluded that Dr. Monroe had destroyed his about
didn't know what it was; did not up to that time, say
II was lime After year was as told what was put into
your husbands eyes Answer; nitrate of silver. My
husband at time did get lime into his eyes but that
did not to as the cause of his being blind.
That Is all of her tesmony-or the substantial part of
upon that particular branch of the But
determine what the testimony was The defendant
bases argument and that is matter. gentlemen for
you take into sideration upon this fact he
it is acttha is also for you to determine that com
plant made against him until about the time of the
commencement ofthis suit. And that very strange
make instantly blind and accusation of that
kind made against him. You heard the explanation of
have heard the testimony Of the plaintiff The paina
says that M effect was produced upon his vision nsan
paintia counsel says tha i the testiony from the
parts Of this State and that the application
made by the defendant would not produce this effect
produced this effect The plaintiffs counsel says the ef
feet produced and if nitrate of silver could not have
done it, then the defendant must have been mistaken in
regard to his testimony when he testified that it was
nitrate of verthat it must have been something else,
ingenious counsel for the plaintiff undertakes the
artillery of the plaintiff upon the ne defendant himself
used Amy living but the DIR. He has testified that
nitrate Of silver that used and has introduced
the very identical brushes AZ he says with which the
And further the counsel for the defendant argues from
suit testified to by the plaintiff could not have been pro
duced by any known substance that could have been
rodqced into the plaintiffs eyes without destroying the
How was that The defendant says that il not
thing that physicians know nothing about and ii is hard
y probable that the defendant himself would make
the profession. How that? 1t is all question for
you to determine. What applied at that iimes Was
for the plaintiff TO show what it s-atrnavey and
necessarily. If he showas the effect actually rroduc
was why then it would be competent for you to deter
mine whether not the failure to satisfy you with
substantial confession that something wrong had been
done. But the defendant, if anybody, knows what
called to this he had no nitrate of silver with him. that
is difficult article to carry, that ifte cork became
ing his clothing badly and therefore he could not make
an application the first time but that he took the article
l DruSnes
with him, also. Now, did he know what he carry
ing down there, or not? Did he know what he was ad
ministering not2
1t is suggested that his reputation physician at
stake 1t might have been suggested that his reputation
as moral mau is involved in this question: of
truth and integrity What did he apply that time
If you are satisfied that he applied nitrate of silver time
how are you to determine whether that proper
| remedy or not! Have you any other guide than the
testimony here in regard to the nature of nitrate of
silver, aside from the testimony coming from the
perts. the doctors, of longer experience of
them very eminent in their profession in this State and
out Of it. Have they testified that it the remedy
they should have applied if they had been called
The defendant claims that the testimony of these
perts if he has satisfied that he did administer nitrate of
silver at that time establishes beyond all cy contro
versy that he treated the the most distinguished
surgeons and physicians in this State from Massa-
called.
Well, gentlemen if he exercised that skill common to
educated men in his profession and that and dill
gence in The application OF remedies and Judgment too
and discretion which they would have exercised why
then he did his duty and his whole duty and however
great may have been the misfortune of this plaintiff or
his suffering or his loss of time and of the society
tendant not responsible for and should
responsible. To hold him responsible for if you should
be satisfied If the evidence shows and YOU are to
Judge OF that alone to hold him responsible for that
when he had done his duty in that respect would not
only be an injury to him but in would be wrong inct.
ed upon the community For in difficult cases, what
surgeon or physician will attempt to act, if doing
what physicians or surgeons of skill would have done he
| Is still responsible for the result in damages
So consider, gentlemen and determine how this was
whether els thus justly charged with this experimental
trcatment-ths unSkilullncsS and 1his