The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-01-18
Sons Jaw Said 10 Have Been Permanently
Injured as a Result Of IL
BONE BECAME BADLY DISEASED.
Three Operations We're Made Necessary Sealing
Up Of Tcolh Claimed 10 Haze Beer
The fIlma1 Cause Of Trouble.

~ Lewis A WilbcY who mas an
o'llce on Broad street. Pawiuck,L ot
which h. pl~ctices dentistry, Mas de-
feadant IA a suit tried beforr Jury ip
Judge wilhurs court toda.. lin l.
c.lrgcd by Thomas l.. Dawson with
having 50 ncsiecnuy and unsrlfuu,
treated the teeth af Mr. Dauson's SON
Wilioio H. Dawson ,oe hitter. who
IL between ! ana 6 years of age. viii
bo diaggGrel 4or lite. Mr. Dawson
ASKS for 5000 damages. The tooth
treated WAS n first tooth and il is
claimed that when the child's mother
took the boy TO Dr. WILDER she told
him that rhe tooth had been aching
and that she wanted it pulled. but the
doctor advised other treatment and put
arsenic into the cavity in the tooth To
kill the nerve and then hermetically
sealed IL with a cap. lie told Mrs.
Dawson If the tooth ached very much
TO bring the lad back i'm three weeks.
otherwise 10 come back in four weeks.
Following these instructions the cap
was permitted 10 remain on the tooth
and IL became foul and the jaw dis
cased 20 that one operation had 10 be
performed ON the jaw at the child'S
home and two more operations at the
Rhode Island Hospital. In these
operations several pieces ar bone were
taken from the child's jaw. 1t is
claimed by the plaintiff that this treat
y1ent was wrong and that the sealing
Of the tooth did not permit the gases
10 escape and that not only was the
tooth covered injured, but "a soft tooth
that was under IL was osNiroyed.
Joseph Osdeld fs attorney for the
plaintiff end John n. Butman and r..
y. Bassett attorneys for the defend
ant
Arhe cyoss-examination OF the plain
nff showed that he had another child
injured q short time before the tooth
trouhla P1ainuff denied that the sec
bud ch3lJ VINO was injured by falling
Against seGurbstone ever had its cheek
An Interesting question arose during
he tvial as TO whether DIR. Harrington
~ PRwtuclet was qualified To testify |
~ ID ths condition of the tooth some |
,6me after IL was removed from the |
Ehild's jaw counsel for the defence |
claiming that DIR. Harrington unless |
he had made q special study Of chem |
3stry gould not testify as To the pres |
ence OF poison I'm the tooth. The deci- !
ViOuS Quobcu Qlu not So ~, lhi as toub- |
eel for the defendant contented and !
an examination of the doctor took \
place. The doctor said he was well ac-
Quainted with the effect of poison on |
the human system and of the effect OF /
liquid arsenicai fluid.
To Mr.. Bassett witness said he took |
the preparatory course in chemistry |
before entering Harvard Medical school |
had taken a special course in chemis- |
try i'm relation to poisons. Had been |
a manufacturing pharmacist i'm the em- |
ploy OF Otis Clapp AZ company. Boston. |
FOR two years, and made quite a num- |
ber OF analyses OF poisons. He had |
also read all the books on chemistry |
that Mr.. Bassett. counsel for the de- !
PENDANT. had heard OF and at least one |
more. At the close of the examination |
on this point Mr.. Bassett objected To- /
the doctors testimony the tooth had |
been thrown away by the doctor.
Judge Wilbur wanted 20 know what |
Dr. Harrington did for the Boston |
pharmacists Dr. Harrington replied (
that aconite. belledona and arsenic |
came under his care for analyses. He |
had examined human intestines for |
arsenic. DE-. Harrington's testimony |
was admitted as that OF an expert.