On 'what a surgeon may suffer in Victoria' from trial by jury : being a report of the suit-at-law, Turner v. Van Hemert, in the Supreme Court of the colony of Victoria : with articles, correspondence, &c. &c. and remarks / by Chirurgeon.

Van Hemert, F. T. (Francis Thomas), -1876

Date:: 1872

Credit: On 'what a surgeon may suffer in Victoria' from trial by jury : being a report of the suit-at-law, Turner v. Van Hemert, in the Supreme Court of the colony of Victoria : with articles, correspondence, &c. &c. and remarks / by Chirurgeon. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

69/74 page 69

$To Mrs. Bowden.—If that be the woman I saw at Mrs. Turner’s, 1 would put the questions—Was she ever present in the room with Mrs. Turner and myself except for the object of finding pen, ink, and paper for me, and of looking for an old prescription? She is quite right in stating that “ she did not hear Mrs. Turner make any state- ment or remarks with reference,” &c.; for she was most carefully excluded from the room during my visits, except only for the objects stated. The late Mrs. Trenchard was the only third party present at any of my visits, and she could have stated more fully than I can as to who it was brought the action. Lastly, I would ask Mr. Crooke, John Orange, and Jane Turner, if at the meeting on the Chapel-street bridge, Mrs. Turner did not state that “unless I withdrew the statements made by me she would bring an action 1 ” I do not need to make any statutory declaration. I leave it to you, Sir, and the public to judge as to the probable truth of my statements, in which I have clergymen and ladies to corroborate me; and trusting I may not have occasion again to trespass on your space, I am yours, &c., Robert Robertson, M.R.C.S.E. Wellington-street, St. Kilda, Dec. 13. [It is right to say that on the 9th inst. Mr. Robertson did call at this office to state that his remarks at the meeting referred to had not been exactly reported ; but he ultimately considered that, as the difference was trifling, perhaps it was not worth correcting. Again, on the 11th inst., seeing our'note that a letter from Mr. Crooke was held over, he left a request that, if it contained a contradiction to the statements made in his speech, a foot-note might be appended giving the correct version of what he had said. And this was not, as reported, that Mr. Crooke and Mrs. Turner went into a corn-store, but that they spoke outside the corn-store ; and a patient of Mr. Robertson’s, who was inside, overheard their conversation.—Ed. A.] (Mr. Beaney snuffs himself out.) TO THE EDITOR OP THE ARGUS. Sir.—I have read the letter of Mr. Van Hemert in your issue of to day, and cannot avoid concluding that he has put himself out of the controversy by the tone of abuse which he has assumed. His expression in reference to my letter is as follows :—“ There is only one conclusion to my mind, and that is they are both utterly igno- rant of the nature of the accident, and are totally incapable of form- ing a correct diagnosis in cases of intracapsular fracture of the thigh bone.” This is of course unworthy of a gentleman engaged in so important a controversy.$