Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/418

 had no motion in his elbow. That the witness broke the callous and set it again, and made (what the witness himself described as) a very fine cure, which was spoken of about the country. He imputed the failure of the defendant in his attempt to cure the plaintiff to negligence and carelessness: an apprentice boy (he said) might have known better: that the bone might have been set within five hours after the accident; though he admitted that the swelling, if much, must first be reduced, which might take a fortnight. And he recommended the plaintiff to bring an action. He also spoke to a conversation with the defendant, who considered it as a very difficult dislocation to reduce; and said that he would make a compensation to the plaintiff. The learned Judge told the jury that the gist of the action was negligence; of which direct evidence might be given; or it might be inferred by the jury, if the defendant had proceeded without any regard to the common ordinary rules of his profession, That unskilfulness alone, without negligence, would not maintain the action. And that he was at a loss to state to the jury what degree of skill ought to be required of a village surgeon. But that, whether or not his direction were accurate in this respect, at any rate the witness Kingston imputed only negligence and carelessness to the defendant and Pidcock, in not discovering the fracture of the bone of the arm when they reduced the dislocated elbow; which there was no doubt was properly reduced: and that considering all the circumstances of the case, he did not think that such gross negligence was imputable to the defendant as to make him liable in damages to the plaintiff. The report concluded by stating that the jury found a verdict for the defendant, much to the Judge's satisfaction; who intimated that the vaunting language of the witness Kingston must have diminished his credit with the jury.

Shepherd Serjt. and Espinasse were now to have shewn cause: but though all the Court seemed to be satisfied, as well now as when the rule was moved for, that the action