But the question has a much more important aspect than the merely surgical one. It has been decided j that a charitable body shall pay damages for injury done to an indi vidual seeking their aid and the treat ment of a professional man paid by them. The verdict is a severe reproof to a body of men who undertake troublesome and thankless duties for no reward but the public good, and it is a loss of reputation to the doctor who endeavours to carry the beneficent intentions of the, Board into effect. The result, we fear, will be. hurt ful to that portion of the public that seeks for hospital and charit able aid. ' Sensitive men will shrink from taking offices that expose them not only to censure, but possible loss of money, and professional men of position will not give their time and skill to an institution that risks their reputation and gives them nothing in return but the satisfaction of doing a public duty and getting publicly thanked—no, blamed. It is to be hoped that the Board of the future will not be composed of men who only want to pose before the com munity, and the Staff of the future of doctors who are trying to make prac tices and gain popularity.
It is the correct thing for a tragedy to end with a comedy. The jury examining and passing their opinions on the much-examined limb without any impartial expert to guide them, cannot but call up the thought of a by - gone and unscientific time when a jury of matrons of wisdom and good repute was brought to gether to examine and report upon cer tain delicate points in medico-legal gynecology.
