Carlisle Patriot 01 June 1844 01 June 1844 Bail Court, London

01 June 1844 Bail Court, London

Before Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN Tuesday, May 28. KERR v. LAWSON Mr. WATSON moved for a rule to show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff in this case should not be set aside, and a nonsuit entered, or a new trial had. It was an action brought to recover a sum of money which the plaintiff claimed for work and labour done and performed, materials and medicines supplied, and journies performed, by the plaintiff, as a surgeon and apothecary; and was tried before the under sheriff of Cumberland. The learned counsel now moved, on the ground that it was not proved that the plaintiff was an apothecary; he submitted that the plaintiff was bound to prove either that he was in practice before 1815, or that he had obtained a certificate from the Apothecaries' Company, which had not been done. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN examined the particulars of the plaintiff's demand, and observed that he did not see any thing relating to the business of an apothecary. Mr. WATSON said that the case was one of dropsy, and he submitted that until an operation became necessary, it must be considered to be a medical and not a surgical case. The plaintiff had also attended the party for a disease of the heart, which no man would ever say was a surgical case. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN. - I am sure I would not say it was not. I agree with the Under-Sheriff, that the plaintiff was a surgeon. Mr. WATSON. - Before an operation it is a medical case. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN. - Then if a person choses to ascertain, by the advice of a surgeon, whether he is in a proper state to undergo an operation, the surgeon who attends cannot make any charge. Mr. WATSON still contended that until an operation became necessary, a surgeon could not recover, unless he had obtained his certificate from the Apothecaries' Company. Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN appeared, however, to be of a different opinion; but said he would look at the papers, and consider the question. May 29. - Mr. Justice WIGHTMAN said that in this case in which Mr. WATSON moved yesterday for a nonsuit, he had read the notes of the trial and should refuse. At the Sheriff's Couet, London, on Tuesday, a special commission was held, issued at a suit of the Crown by the Commissioners of Excise, against the estate of the late Mr. Edward Hall CAMPBELL, who was a distiller and rectifier, carrying on an extensive business at Newcastle-upon-Tyne for alleged frauds upon the revenue, amounting to £15,871 11s 7d. The jury found for the whole amount claimed by the Exchequer.

 

< Prev		Next >