Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1871-03-22
Washington County Court, March
Term, 1871.
Hon. AsAnEL PECK, Prsnaisg Juiys,
Hon. JOSIAH Woon, ..,.-,,.,
Hon. JANUS CRosstrT, ) "'''''''' S"-y'''

Hon AsAilEL PECK, PrsidiEg Judys.
Hon. Hon. J Ja;'AH c SSoR. A"a'lfJalg"
/ Chas W Davenport, Of Mortified, rs. DR..
Samuel Keith Of Clinton, lowa.-This suit was
for alleged malpractice, and created much int rest
/ IL appeared from the testimony that Mr. Dayen-
/ port fractured the humerus Of the right arm,
March 81 lsG6 while ehopping in the woods by a
falling limb which also made a wound on the
head DR.. Keith, then living in Mortified, was
called to attend upon Mr.. Davenport.
Fhe shock Of injury to the system, with some
constitutional taints, made the patient a poor
subject Tor a speedy and perfect union Of bone.
For. two weeks he was confined mostly to the
bed, in debilitated condition, and with a severe
nervous cough. 1t also appeared that Mr. d.
had three fits during the first five weeks after the
fracture, and had been subject to them for many
years that his health was such that he was dis
charged from the &. 5. service and applied for a
pension.
On the 18Th Of April DR.. X. decided that union
OF bone had commenced, and directed the patient
% come to his Office in one week On examina-
ton Of the arm on the Goth of April, Dr. Keith
detected motion, and the next day brought Mr.
d. to Montpelier to consult DR.. Rublee, who or
dered a continuation Of the same dressings, and
the application of a stimulating liniment, and said
" he would see him again in three or four weeks ="
Dr. X made the linment for Mr.. D. and ordered
him to make him weekly visits at his office lie
made him two or three visits at the office, and in
the mean time consulted Dr. C..M Chandler, who
examined the arm, and approving the treatment,
told him to 60 back to Dr. X. for treatment lie
went alone to see DIR, Rublee and had him dress
the arm without notifying DR.. Keith and never
went back 10 DIR. X. for directions, and Dr. X.
understanding that he was discharged from the
case, gave it no further attention. The result
was false joint or non-unon.
Dr. Keith sold his ride in the spring of 1865,
and went West. On the Goth Of June, 1868, be
was sued for NAL practce, the damages being set
at s. 900 The case was tried at the September
term in 1870, before Judge Steele, Dr. Keith
coming from Iowa to make his defence Before
gong to trial the counsel of the plaintiff offered
70 settle for the sum of 5000. The jury did not
agree and the case was continued The trial at
THIS term continued little over three days. The
defence was very clear and perfect. The treat
ment of Dr. Keith was sustained by all the med
cal testimony of both the plaintiff and defendant.
Counsel for plaintiff, James n. johnson. L. t.
Durant, f. V. Randall Counsel for defendant.
George NJ. Fisk, IIeman Carpenter, Paul Dilling
ham.
Brief Of Judge Pecks charge, in case of Da.
yenport rs. Keith.
a Doctor must possess proper skill for the dis
charge of the duties of his profession not the
highest skill attained by study and experience, or
practice in cities, where rare advantages are en-
joyed, but common, ordinary skill. lie must APP
ply that skill, and if not wanting in that he is
not liable for imperfect results. You are to de-
termine from the evidence whether he did,
Plaintiff must show that ordinary skill was not
applied to entitle him TO recover Plaintiffs
counsel claim that defendant did not give that
close attention to the plaintiff after the arm was
IN the permanent dressing that it demanded.
Inc testimony of the surgeons is that the dress
lngs are not to be often removed and that the
visits are more to see that there is no disnlace-
ment. Then it must be shown by the plaintiff
that the injury was because of mispacement
where not visited sufficiently often by defendant
to make him liable for the non-union. Union OIL
bone is The process Of nature.
Delt claims that plaintiff Voluntarily left him. |
and consulted other surgeons, II the evidence
was such as to give the defendant good reasons to
suppose that the plaintiff had abandoned him, |