New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-12-18
THE COURTS.
THE SUIT AGAINST DIR. MOVES.


THE JURY poRs not FIND THAT he OPERATED On
PATIENTS EYES WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
The TRIAL of the suit OF William ID. Tucker
AGAINST Dr. Henry o. Moves, the occulIst. to recover
$4,000 damages for the lose sight. alleged TO nave
resulted from operation performed by d. Noye''
concluded yesterday before Judge Russell, IN Ihe
Superior Court By tho disagreement OF tue jury luz
reputation OF Dr. Noyes and the interesting character OF
thecase have Drawn p ctacrs to the Court room
j. l. I'M acted : counsel for Mr. Tucker ana Joseph
II. Choate for DR.. Noycs
Ire story OF Mr. Tucker and Of his parents ard sister
that he taken the New-Yors Eve lnhrinaIy'
where DR. Moves rssi1es, 20 see II ANYTHING could ne
done improve mis- sight He could see nothing WIN
his right because OF cataract aud was barely aDe
to read with his left eye. Mr. Tucker declared ih"t
he emphacay ted DR.. Noyes TO operate Only
upon the right eye; but that " en- he from he
operatingroOm both eyes had been operated uron The
result improvement IN the rent eye and the oi
loss cf signt IN the lott eve.
d. Soyes on the sfaui gave nteresting testimony "a
10 view OF the He said that. although II was
upon yet ne understood finally tha ne Dad authority TO
mis- professional judgment abont the matter Aier
int Il would do good 'ha- ihc operation cpuu
effect nothing. Then, while tho young man Nes st'i
20 ths ieir eye. lie nenv at that moment tnal ne
was acting u"d tte nthor " Of he patients friends
II; TINS boys icit eye and VII do ~ ID" NOyes thtn
! described tie metuod by which ne bioke
nrDno that cbsruged TIE vision. lie performed every
sep at the operation Wilton the asssfanc. of am
student anyone else. and, u was cOlciud d.
believed taat 10 had Dccu very successful operation
rhe usual atrOp.ae applications were m3dc ana thc
paticut led aw,y vita Uaudaced eyes. Whcn if.
MOI hita on tine 10 iOWng sunday hc fnuhd ira u
serious iuftmmNt ui I'D ct "a winch required M
opening OF a part ~ ~ 10 aO@ me pu- ~ ran vu.
Ten days Itrrwarl d.. NOyes said &c hnr" tut iur
sgnt of that eye g,ne. lie did vriytnng t"t '
skull auc como go. BUt = young fucker qua us
parents felt indignant at him nd they told an II
ought TO rive tie plant "a enough 10 support hin ioI
nftgJO,CUO IN named. Dr. Eoyc- s4id W I
wa- absurd, hat ie wouid 90 anything Tat he
cunld rel eVr his present d>tr auJ hC gave ~" nos
SJl. He tined TO persuade tnc 1tcut 80 upni 20 an
otacr operation fi-n csc and assured hAi il
would be- al. He said That Zee would pui
his name 10 uapcs PROMISING 10 ply h'n FoOuVu 3" II
nJt huocessul but the IL was n1t Carried ont
Tue 81 operation upon the r-ntc . turned out Dc.tr
tutD lad been IN lcIpaeG ana before the yOuub ual
Oh 3io hos p ne ab" ,O. c as an ordinary person
can lCORing tArCugA ca.d Win pm LOc panc-td
- t.
lac counsel for the peiutin colcalel that D. HoYeS
had acted WITH the Create ski ad care r thC Oicr
Judge Rus tli, 10 4Lt jury, S'id t'a
the WA0ic inttei rested D,u tie Ql'sllnn "haihe D.
Noy.s had reasonable ground 10 believe Whrn ht cI-
me the ration uNon tlo ieit eye tni a. MAD t+o
proper authority So to d..
Tn Jurors out several hours Oh Thursday even
lug tore Juisr EG sell DI tl'H .ocAeI ap WIN III
fuctIOus - IA sealed N'.li. IA c-lht I''
yesterday noIuluZ dni -Id heE cluJ no agree
Gbcy SO ID tel f-vUr OF D. NOyc5 10 Two Tor the
plaintiff