The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-06-08
Mr.. Rogers Claims That
He Was Injured by 1t.
Was Put Up by Mistake for
the Tincture Of Iodine.
Suit to Recover $500 From a Drug
gists Firm Now on Trial.

A rather unusual case was on trial to-
day before Judge Wilbur and jury. IL
was the suit brought by James Rogers OF
to recover $500 damages for injuries result
ing from the alleged mistake of "A clerk in
the defendants employ giving zinc iodide
instead of tincturo of iodine as "A prescrip-
tion presented To the clerk called for.
Mr.. Rogers claims that soon after he
applied tho zinc iodide TO his side it be-
came burned and blistered and that for
two weeks he was confined TO his bed dur
ing which time he suffered a great deal of
pain. A representative of the defendant
firm, Mrs. Rogers wife of the plaintiff,
testified, came 90 the house and promised
To see that Mr.. Rogers was recon-
pensed for his pain and the expenses in
Cured. This promise Mrs. Rogers was
certain was made in the presence of DIR.
j. A. O'keefc the attending physician
A clerk in the defendants Weybosset
street store called at the plaintiffs homo
according 10 tho same witness, and asked
To see the bottle in which the Zinc iodide
was and when the clerk departed the bot
tie was missing This disappearance Mrs
Rogers said the clerk explained by say
ing he was sorry To put her TO the trouble
of coming after the bottle but he had "a
habit OF putting things in his pocket
Thomas j. Higgins testified that he was
present when MIR. Lyon came To the plain
tiff : house and that Mr.. Lyon said after
looking at Mr.. Rogers side. That 5 one of
tho worst sights i ever saw ana this is
our fault and we will make IL all right
On cross-examination Mr.. Higgins was
positive that the language used by Mr..
Lyon was not, "if this Is our fault we
will make 1t all right f"
DR.. O'Keefe's Testimony.
DIR. j. A. O'Keefe testified that on May
20 1896. he wrote prescription for the
plaintiff. When counsel for the plaintif
asked what the prescription called for
there was objection on the part of the
defendants counsel and the prescription
was produced. 1t was for tine OF Iodine
and Ch. Is. The latter Authorizations be-
ing for camel hair brush TO apply the
iodine with. Zinz iodibe was not a
liquid. the doctor said and there would
be no need OF brush. AIR. Lyon had
promised To pay him for tending Mr..
Rogers, but never did so. Mr.. Lyon had
suggested TO the doctor that he see what
the family would settle for and 1t would
be a favor to him IL the doctor would ar
range the matter.
On cross-examination DIR. O'keefe said
he was the first TO tell MIR. Lyon OF the
mistake alleged To have been made.
He telephoned to Mr.. Lyon on the day
he was called to Mr.. Rogers and visited
him. Both looked at the prescription the
doctor had written after they returned
from Mr.. Rogers home Witness did not
remem ber saying to Mr.. Ham ilton at the
store before he saw Mr.. Lyon: IL don't
know how your going TO get out of II.
i am going TO square myself and the man
will be down TO see you when he gets
out. The doctor emphasized his denial
by saying that the question was founded
on a falsehood.
George +. Perkins as an expert, testified
sl.as hon
by plaintiff and found it TO be zinc iodide.
The preparation given Mr. Rogers could
not be applied with "a camel's hair brush.
Zlnz iouide was more harsh than tincturo
of iodine.
Claim of the Defense.
G.. NJ. Van Slyck in his opening address
TO the jury in behalf of the defendants,
said that it would be shown that the
negligence, If there was any, TO be that Of
the doctor who wrote the prescription
and not of the pharmacist who put 1t up
and also that it would be shown that
zinc iodide was far less injurious To the
skin than tincture of iodine.
George &. Lyon Il stified that be was
member of the firm OF Hall * Lyon and
the first he knew OF the trouble with Mr.
Rogers was when DIR. O'kcefc met him on
the street and took him to Rogers house
Witness denied promising TO pay DR.
O'keefe's bill, and then said that he had
rubbed zinc iodide into his wrist several
times bewteen and o'clock Saturday
afternoon, and there was no bad effect.
On discrimination Mr. McCoughlin
wanted permission TO apply some OF the
preparation sold 10 Mr.. Rogers to Mr..
Lyons arm, but that gentleman objected
but said he did not object to new
bottle of the preparation boing used. Mr..
McCoughiin did not want the new bottle
so the experiment was not made.
In redirect cToss-eXamination the wit
ness read from the United States Dispen-
sary Co show that the zinc lodide strongly
diluted had been use! as an astrin gent-
and had also been applied with camels
hair pencil
Clerk Hamilton testified he put up the
prescription Mt store of the defendants on
Weybosset street He called a man who
had charge of the store 10 check IL and
told what hc had put up. To Mr. Nc
Cougblin on cFuss-oxamination Mr.. Ham
ilton said that the namo of the party
checking was not on the bottle sold to
MIR. Rogers. Mr. Hamilton also said he
left the employ Of Hall x Lyon last Oc-
tober in order TO study dentistry.
There were n number of other witnesses
who testified in support of the defendants
claims.