The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1895-07-15
DOCTORS" IN TROUBLE.
A Graduate Of the Woods Calls Plain
tiff a Quack.
A Twilight Assault and Other Cases
In District Court.

The evidence In one of the cases tried
before Judge Sweetland in the civil
division of this court this morning was
of so amusing a nature that the court,
members OF the bar and Others present
could with difficulty keep from laughing
loudly. The suit was one In which Henry
c. Nelson, otherwise known as Doctor
Nelson, was plaintiff, and B. Brunnell,
sometimes known as an herb physician,
was defendant. "Dr." Nelson sued for
1896 for medical services rendered the
herb doctor for period of three months,
during which time the latter suffered
from what OR Nelson described as
general ability (known to members OF the
Rhode Island Medical Society as general
debility and cataracts on his eyes. DR..
Wyman and DIR. Wells stated that "Dr. -
Nelson gave the defendant proper treat
ment. All OF the parties interested
resided in the Hoyle Block.
cdr" Nelson stated he was a graduate
of the Jacksonville Institute. He was
sharply oss-examined by Peter +.
Quinn, attorney for Mr.. Brunnell, and
got badly mixed in medical terms. The
defendant took the witness stand and
testified that he had never hired the
plaintiff to treat him, and that the only
time the former came TO his house was
when he had a good meal, then he would
take great interest in the defendants s
affairs. He was very sarcastic In denying
that "Dr" Nelson had ever given him
any treatment, whatever, and also said
that he had no use for quack doctors.
When he was sick his daughter attended
to his wants. In answer TO questions by
Mr.. McGill, who was attorney for the
plaintiff, Mr.. Brunnell said that he was a
graduate of no college but the woods |;
still he had no deep grounded objection
to physician who had graduated from a
medical college of good standing. He
said he was an herb doctor and cured
people who We're suffering, and formerly
had his headquarters in a tent at Mark
Rock, and In December last came to this
city and that his daughter kept house
for him. The court refused TO permit
Mr.. McGill an answer to his question as
TO whether or not the daughter of witness
was married. He also testifedthat he had
been warned not TO let the plaintiff call
upon him or he would be presented with
a bill and on this account he had given
orders TO his daughter 10 keep Nelson
out of their home.
Judge Sweetland said he did not have
a very high opinion of the medical treat
ment given but as there was testimony,
by other doctors, as to the treatment
given, he would give the plaintiff iudg-
ment OF go and costs.
Samuel Irons, very young lad, brought
suit, by his father, against Samuel Gam
mon for assault and battery this morning
Associate Judge Reuckert presided at the
trial OF the case, which was apparently
the result of lack of harmony among
neighbors. The plaintiff claimed that he
was kicked, bruised and treated In an
outrageously cruel way by the defendant.
The latter said he administered a very
slight rebuke to the boy because he had
called him a thief many times. In an
swer TO question from Thomas L. West,
attorney for the plaintiff, as 10 whether
or not he did "waltz around the mystic
twilight" and gather up wood, he ad-
mitted he did, but that he had permission
TO take the wood, and was no thief. Irv-
ing Champlin represented the defendant.
The parties live on Washington avenue.
Judgment for g and costs was given in
favor of the plaintiff.
Charles S. Smith VS.. Dean & Mckenzie.
The plaintiff sued TO recover s157, balance
alleged to be due on a contract for the
painting and papering OF the interior of a
house. The defendant claimed the work
was done according to the plans and
specifications furnished. Decision for
plaintiff for s12025 Harry c. Curtis for
plaintiff.
Thomas p Burke and wife VS.. Mary
Adams. This was a suit for slander. De-
cision for plaintiff for 81 and costs.
James H. BARLEY VS.. William A. Duke.
Decision for the plaintiff for ESQ and costs.
James Crook VS.. William J. Braitch.
Dismissed for failure of the plaintiff to
furnish surety for costs.