Raw-son was a physician. Plaintiff claims that defendant was guilty of negligence and malpractice in prescribing for and treating her arm. Rawson, the witness, did not see the arm for some time after this treatment.

It is said this construction will allow claims, really for torts, to be litigated upon pleas in offset; that negligence and malfeasance of attorneys and physicians can be sued for in assumpsit, and therefore be pleaded in offset.

The object of the law is, on the one 'hand, to guard the patient against the wrongful practices of ignorant or negligent men, who set themselves up as physicians or surgeons, and on the other, to protect the faithful practitioner of

The setting it in motion before he had accomplished that was the cause of the injury, and which was clearly negligence on the part of the defendants' agent.

There is no force in the exception that the physician called to describe the injury to the plaintiff's arm should not have exhibited to him, in the presence of the jury, the arm so injured.

And again, “ Every person is responsible for the damage he occasions, not merely by his acts, but by his negligence, his imprudence, or his want of skill.” G. 0. 2295.

Doctor Vianet who attended upon the plaintiff, says that he believes that she remained in her room about 25 or 26 days, and that the whole costs of her sickness, exclusive of nurses, are about one hundred dollars.

And from this evidence it would seem that there must have been a want of ordinary skill, or great negligence in the treatment of the case, in not detecting the dislocation of the wrist joint.

The physicians all agree that this portion of the injury could have been easily detected by ordinary care and skill, and the fact that it had been, and was still dislocated, was afterwards detected by a person who did not profess surgery

In this action the plaintiff claims damages of the defendant for the loss of services of his wife, on account of the alleged malpractice of the defendant, who, as surgeon and physician, was employed to set, reduce and cure a broken

leg of plaintiff’s wife ; but by negligence, ignorance and unskillfullness in his profession failed to cure it; and under his treatment it in fact became incurable.

deceased, but not his wrongs, except when those wrongs operate to the temporal injury of the personal estate; and the court assume that for injuries affecting the life or health of the deceased arising out of the unskilfulness of a physician

, or the imprisonment of a party brought on by the negligence of an attorney, although breaches of the implied understanding for due skill and diligence, the executor cannot maintain a suit.