Trial Report, between 4 and 22 March 1843 [Dana v. Brink]
-
Source Note
Trial Report, [, Hancock Co., IL], between 4 and 22 Mar. 1843, Dana v. Brink (Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL Mayor’s Court 1843); “Decision,” Wasp, 22 Mar. 1843, [2]–[3].
- Historical Introduction
DECISION.
| ,) | In Assumpsit. |
| vs) | |
| ,) |
Mayor’s Court, City of ,
March the 2nd & 3rd, 1843.
This is an action of assumpsit commenced by summons and brought by the to recover damages, as he avers in his bill of particulars, sustained by the by reason of the s failing to perform his undertakings, as physician, in an usual and skilful manner, which he had undertaken by his employment and his engagement in attending as such physician the of the in the city of in the year 1842, to do
$99,00.
Also for damage ssustained from the malfeasance and misfeasance of the in the treatment of plaintiff’s while employed as physician by the to attend his said at in 1842; contrary to the s undertaking as such physician, by reason of which bad acts and treatment of the to ’s said in the premises, ’s said is greatly injured in her health and put to lasting pain and suffering; and the has thereby lost the services, company and comfort of his said , since said bad treatment of ; and been put to pain, trouble, expense and anxiety not only from the present loss of his said ’s health, but also from well grounded apprehensions of the fatal consequences of the injury done to his said , by said in the premises, to his damage
$99,00.
After the witnesses were sworn for the , the s counsel raised an objection to them, on account, that one school of physicians is arrayed against the other. ’s counsel replied that the physicians were only to give their evidence as an opinion of skill &c. for which he read Harrison’s Digest p 1047. ’s counsel resumed, but the court decided that it could not determine the incompetency of the witnesses till there was something before the court to shew the fact; therefore the court heard the witnesses.
— was at ’s house, on Saturday the 22nd of October, 1842, when , the defendant, was called to administer to ’s , in a case of fever or diarrhea; this was about noon; ’s told she did not expect to be confined then, nor for ten days, she had been injured by a fright; went home, and was recalled about 11 o’clock at night; ’s had some pains then, thought they were labor pains; said he had given her medicine,— that her child was pitched one side— had given her Smut Rye, (Ergot) said the amnion fluids were discharged: thought the hurt in his operations; he used force and violence, she screeched, and begged him to desist. said she did not expect to be confined, nor did not know when she should be, nor did she know that the amnion fluids had discharged. saw the introduce his hand, per vagina; patient manifested great pain, and urged him to quit, said he was hurrying her too fast, proposed having somebody else; has heard say that s’ treatment to her was the cause of her sickness since that time.
Mrs. Duel [Mary Deuel]— was present when ’s was confined on the 24th of October, 1842; was called on the 22nd at 11 o’clock at night. called upon witness to borrow a syringe, said was sick, and that he thought her child had been dead two or three days: when witness came, was in considerable distress; thought she was ready for parturition, and would be delivered by three pains more. resorted to unusual means. Witness remonstrated against his course, to let nature have time; while screamed, do let me alone! you will kill me! do let go! but was then plying his hand, and said he could not, for something would go back: had given ergot and pepper, said the child was wrong and must be turned before it could be born; that it was necessary to keep up irritation in order to create pains and hasten delivery. Witness proposed to have some one else called. opposed it, but finally consented. Witness saw patient next day at 11 o’clock, and she seemed free from pain.
— attended , ’s wife, as an accoucheur, last October; was there when arrived, shook her hand and held it fast sometime; said he had sent for because he had a very bad case; the child was wrong and dead; that the membrane was broken, and the amnion fluids escaped, and the child turned; had sent for because her hand was small, and she could turn it. asked what he had done; he replied nothing. What have you given her? he answered, nothing but a little nervine and cayenne pepper: however he admitted he had given one dose of ergot, of eleven grains; had ergot of the previous week. proceeded to examine , ’s wife, and by touching the child’s ear, discovered it was a natural presentation; and by examination of the fontanella found the child was alive by [p. [2]]
View entire transcript |
Cite this page
Cite this page
