The Portland daily press., 1894-10-10
VERDICT A SURPRISE.
Washington County Jurors Find
Against a Portland Oculist.

ing's Treatment as Proper--The Case To
Be Appealed.
The supreme court in. Washington
county, Chief Justice Peters presiding,
has been occupied this week with case
OF malpractice against one of the leading
eye and ear specialists of this city, DR..
James A. Spaulding. The jury brought
a verdict of $1,000 for the plaintiff. A
despatch from Machias says that this re-
suit wss great surprise, both to the
bar and TO others who had watched the
trial. The case will be carried to the
Law Court on the ground that the ver-
dict is against the evidence. The COM
plainant in this case was Frank Feeney,
father of Geneyieve Feeney. girl of
seven years. The action was of tort,
charging the defendant with DESTROYING
the sight.of the girls right eye, while
making an operation on it, in case of
strabismus. The counsels in the case
were William Freeman of Cherryfield,
and John Lynch OF Machias for the
plaintiff and Thomas L. Talbot of Port
land for the defendant.
Mr.Freeman, in his opening of the case.
stated that the operation was performed
at Cherryfleld in August, 1891. He
claimed that DR.. Spalding, before max
ing the operation, tested the sight of
the defective eye, and told the child and
her father that he could make that eye
just as good as the other, and then in
rough and rude manner threw the child
upon bed, and after ether was admin
istered by DR.. Charles J. Milliken, an
other physician present, proceeded to per-
form the operation, which he did in the
short space of one minutes time, this
time covering not only the use of the
cutting Instrument and other tools used
in the operation, but the applying of
bandage afterwards.
Directions were given by the defen-
sdant to have the bandage removed after
three! days had elapsed, and when re-
moved according to directions. it was
found that the ".blackness of darkness
had usurped the place of light"
The testimony aof Mr.. Feeney, the
father OF the plaintiff, supported the
opening of the counsel, although he
was not in the room during the one
minute when the operation was per-
formed. s5ts;; :EI
Tie witnesses called for the plaintiff
were her father and mother, and Miss
Caroline M. Adams, teacher in Cherry
field where the plaintiff went to school.
Miss Adams testified that she never
observed any inlperfection in the plain
titf's eye other than squirt, prior to
the operation; butisince the operation
she had noticed her several times place
her hand over one of her eyes, and when
asked if she could see out of it she re-
piled that she could not.
DR.. Spalding, the defendant, has the
misfortune OF being veryshard of hear
ing, and had not the advantage of hear
ing the testimony given against him but
when he came to the stand he was SO
clear and fair in his testimony that his
defense was we'll made IN the minds of
the spectators present, if not the Jurors,
to every charge made against him. He
said two minutes was. ample time for
such an operation as he performed, after
the necessary {. preparations had been
made, and that was the time consumed
in operating upon the plaintiff, and that
he did itf sin the same way that he had
always done it in all the many cases he
has had as member of the staff of
surgeons at the Maine General Hospital
and the Eye ana Ear Infrmary at Port
land. as.well as in his private practice,
and that no injury to the sight of the
eye could possibly occur from such an
operation. He said that in this case
the sight of the eye was gone beyond
restoration when he first saw it, and that
the result expected to be obtained sby
the operation was the strengthening of
the eye, which had been accomplished
in a great measure.
AS to the charge of rudeness and
roughness in manner, he knew nothing
about it and had nothing to say
DR.. Milliken. in his testimony, explained
this charge, perhaps, when he said in an
swer to question put by one of the
counsel, you can see for yourself how
DR.. Spalding is today. he is a different
man, and appears different.from you and
me and many other men.p He said also
that defendant said tosthe little girl,
"come, my darling and then took her
up in a playful manner, and placed her
upon the bed, not in rude. manner, but
in a manner which might have seemed
SO to the father, who was then in state
of excitement and anxiety for his child.
DR.. Erastus Il. Holt the leading sur
geon at the Eye and Ear Infirmary, in
Portland, was witness in the case, and
he fully corroborated the statements
made by the defendant. He said that
what DIR. sipalding did in this case is
the usually accepted practice in such
cases, and that nc injury to sight could
result from it.
DR.. Holt further testified that he had,
since coming to court, made an exa mi
nat of the child's eye, by means OF
frument called an opthalmoscope,
Ating mirror which lights up the
interior of the eve so that if is rem