The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-01-24
CONTRASTING A DENTISTS BILL
An Interesting Trial before Judge Shea In
the Marine Court.

DIR. Charles y. Grout, dentist, of GO West
Thirty fifth street performed professional work
for William T.. Pral and his friend Mrs. Steers
between Jan. 20. 1876. and May 2G OF the same
year. The account for the whole amounted TO
SlSS and was sent to Mr. Pral for settlement
He paid 500. DR.. Grout sued for the rest This
suit was tried yesterday before Judge Shea in
the Marine Court OF the whole bill. sll5 was
for filling about twenty cavities in Mrs Stccrs's
tooth. DIR. Grout testified that he told Mr.. Pral
that his fees were IS an hour and s. for a broken
appointment. On Feb. Z ho charged him $40
for 81 hours of time in filling one tooth. and
for the gold that was put into it. There was
about s. worth of gold. Even though an in
strumcnt one-twenticth of IN inch In diamc-
ter could be inserted between the filling and the
tooth, the work might b. good. DR.. Grout de-
scribcd the work he had done. and then the
defence opened.
Mr.. Prall testified that he had told DIR. Grout
NJ the beginning that LIE was a poor man anu
did not expect To- pay fancy prices. DIR. Grout
replied that he would be ~ reasonable rs. other
had friend. Mrs. Steers. whose teeth needed
filling. and the Doctor told him To send her
for the work done for her, though he had no
doubt that the Doctor had obtained that impress
sion from what h. said When he pad The last
whether it wouldn't do for both bills; and the
Doctor said that it would have to do. though it
was not ~ much n he expected.
Dr. Salmon skinner was then called as an OK
pert who had examined the work of Dr. circuit
In the mouths OF Mr. Prall and Mrs Steers lie
testified that in Mr.. prall's mouth the work
wasn't first class. The filings did not have
that polish that they ought to have had. He had
been able To- insert toothpirk between the I'LL
ing and the shell Of one of the bicuspd eeth.
He had cNamined two molars which were we'll
filed hut the illling lacked polish. He laid IL
was hard To- estimate the value of dental work.
Brignoli. the famous tenor. was charged 81 600
iorsix iil iii and Agnes Eihcl hid refused
teeth nut in good condition. Some Of the best
work ! have seen was done 10y the cheapest
dentists. and some Of the poorest work 10y the
On examination. he said 1t was his GUS
tom To charsea servant one, price and an en-
ploycr another. He would charge "a man worth
~ did not. he added. charge Mrs. Henry
four sets don't think S. an hour an cx,raya.
giant price Tor dents To- charge | do not cs-
Innate the services Of n dentist by the time en-
plmycd but by the amount Of skill used"
While the examination OF DIR. skinner was In
progress. Mr. Pral was conducted into the Jury
room. where his teeth were eXamincd by DR..
Ehrick Parmy and DR.. Albert Lenlcr, experts
brought into court by counsel for DR.. Grout.
Mr. Prall was worth all he had been charged.
| Tho quality Of the work was good rs that If
any dentist with whom he was acquainted. He
thought 50 an hour a moderate charge Judge
Shea refused TO allow DIR. Parmly To- testify rs 10
Or; skinners reputation as dentist.
DIR. Lciiicr testified that the work he had Just
| examined was very thoroughly done. He knew
that two-thlrds OF one OF the molars had been
'NnNht'i una Hll"u because me contour 81 the
tooth had been restored. and there must have
been good anchorage To- retain so much gold in
| position. Or. Lof1lcr did not know any dentist
who charged less than IS an hour. The molar
| filings We're fairly finished.
Judge Shea charged that in considering the
ease the Jury must remember that II involved
the reputation Of a professional man. Of whom
one OF the witnesses had said that he was guilty
| Of malpractice. This part of tho charge was
| considered 10 bear very -'rongly against Nr
| Prall. and his counsel asked that his exception
be noted The Jury at first stood To- 3, but after
| being out one-half hour they allowed DR.. Grout
| his full claim OF SIS.