Elmore County Republican. [volume] (Mountain Home, Idaho) 1910-1915, 1913-11-01


between practitioner and patient
and it seems worth while to report
the case substantially in the words
Of the court itself. This was a con-
test says the court, between two
members of the gentler sex. Plain
tiff was a practitioner of the art or
science Of osteopathy, and the de-
PENDANT either needed. or thought
she did (Which is the same thing,
the services OF the plaintiff. Sew
eral visits We're made, at 1910 per
visit; the. ten cents being added
for street car fare, and the whole
bill amounted to $3.50. Defendant
claims that the bill includes charges
for a number Of social calls, and that
the services rendered by the doc
tor gave her no relief and were SO
unsatisfactory that she was forced
to resort to a physician of the allo-
pathic school, who administered
pills and mixtures in the good, old
fashioned way, On the issues of fact
the plaintiff out-swore the defendant,
or at least the jury in the justices
court thought she did, and the judge
of the superior court refused to- in,
terfere. 1t would never do to hold
that doctor is entitled to reeover
only where he cures the patient. '
So far as We are concerned
the doctors may continue to bury
their mistakes and recover for their
services as they have always done.
If we were dealing with lawyers
the rule might be different, but suf
ficient unto the day is the evil there
Of. 1t appears from the re-
cord that the trial waxed warm, and
during the testimony of the defen-
dant the plaintiff became excited
and exclaimed, Liar! liar! liar! y
and while the defendants counsel
was endeaVoring to persuade the
jury to accept his clients theory of
the case the plaintiff did at inter-
walls YET out in court that the de-
PENDANT was liar and had lied. "
1t was complained that this conduct
of plaintiff prejudiccd the jury a.
gainst the defendant, and that the
verdict ought to be set aside be-
cause the magistrate failed to pun
ish the plaintiff for contempt. The
court answers: Doubtless the con-
duct of the plaintiff overawed the
chivalrous young justice and embar-
raised him quite as much as 1t did
the defendant, and we are not dis
posed to criticize too harshly his ex-
of judicial tmidity. At any
rate, the failure of the magistrate
to punish the contumelious plaintiff J
must be allowed to rest upon his jul
dicial conscience. If we had any
means of knowing that the plaintiff s
conduct terroriZed the jury and CO.
creed the verdict in her favor, we
in the interest of a fair and
impartial trial, direct another hear
ing. But the jury doubtless felt Sc
cure under the protection of the
bailiff and the sacred precincts of
the court room, and if they had re-
turned verdict adverse to the plain
tiff, there was no doubt sope rear
door through which they might ave
and thus have escaped vi
olence at the hands of litigant
outraged at the injustice which had
been meted out to her. Viewing
the matter from this safe distance,
We are inclined to think that the
unseemly conduct of the plaintiff
would have prejudiced her own cause
than it did the defendant g" Judg-
ment for plaintiff is affirmed.
Thus we note that the rule Is laid
down in law that physician does
not guarantee to cure a patient by
simply undertaking the case, and his
compensation Is not dependent upon
a cure, unless that is specifically
agreed in advance.
Generally speaking the duty OF
the average practitioner towards his
patient is to use the ordinary skill
and care possessed and practiced
by members of the profession in gen
eral in similar locations. No extra
ordinary skill or learning is expect
ed of physician in law, beyond that
by the ordinarily skillful
practitioner. The physician is sup
posed to keep abreast of his times,
be ordinarily skillful and careful in
diagnosis and capable Of prescribing
and administering the recognized
remedies and treatments. II the
physician does this he has fulfilled
ais duty to his patient and is enti-
LII d, oo,,n ronca ftnu %horafOr md