Generic Viagra Montreal | Viagra Availability Prescription | Best Pharmacy













































the defendant deserved to be bound to his Good Be- haviour for his Sawciness of a Magistrate." s If the Massachusetts court ignored the technicality of the law in order to sustain Dr. Morasse's verdict viagra availability prescription in his action for slander against Father Brochu, the Mississippi tribunal availed themselves of extreme technicality to defeat a jury's finding for plaintiff in an action for libel grow ing out of the political murder generic viagra montreal of Miss Chisholm and her father, in that State, in 1877. The Yicksburg Herald, in an article entitled '" Rash viagra availability prescription Southerners and Philanthropic Northerners," mildly deprecating the 'unfortunate occurrence," as such episodes used to be called, said: "The accident of Miss Chisholm's death, caused by malpractice, and not by her slight wound, adds tenfold to the deplorable consequences." The murdered girl's surgeon brought an action and recovered S500. But the appellate court setthis small generic viagra montreal verdict aside, (1) because the viagra availability prescription trial judge's charge " assumed that the word malpractice meant gross ignorance and unskilfulness, which is only one of its ordinary meanings," instead of leaving it for the jury to decide in what sense it was used; (2) because a witness had been allowed viagra availability prescription to testify to the technical meaning of the word; and (3) because defendant, having introduced e\ idence of improper treatment without objection, was not allowed after the court's charge to amend his plea, generic viagra montreal so as to set up jus- tification; a righteous decision, perhaps, but of the sort that makes uninstructed laymen crv, " Woe to them that call evil good and good evil," 3 for it would seem that no amount of theorizing or hair-splitting can alter the fact that, to common sense and under- standing, it is so defamatory to attribute a patient's death to the surgeon's malpractice that any other per- son would hesitate to employ a practitioner so charged. In a comparatively recent New York case,* the evi- dence went to prove that defendant said among other things, in speaking of an amputation by plaintiff: " It would have been better to have taken off the other arm, then he would have had the right arm to use; it was a perfect piece of malpractice; it was the big- gest piece of malpractice he ever knew or heard of. 1 Kree vs. Marescaux. L. K. Q. P., 7, Bill '. Neal, 1 Leving, : 2, "' Kodgers vs. Kline, 56 Mis-.. 808. " Lynde vs. Johnson, 39 Hun, 12. 434- January 4. 1896] MEDICAL RECORD. He cut the arm off, and got his name up and got a big fee. He acted hastily." Xo special damage was averred, and a verdict was found for defendant. A motion for a new trial on exceptions alone was denied. The opinion, dealing only with questions of law, is highly technical; but it is of interest here because, although it holds the statements that plaintiff in am- putating acted hastily and without sufficient examina- tion, and that he might better have cut generic viagra montreal off the boy's left arm, etc., were not actionable per se, nevertheless it carefully points out that the exceptions do viagra availability prescription not raise the question whether the words charging " malpractice" were actionable per se, and expressly states viagra availability prescription that the court does not held that they are not so. From this it seems a fair inference that, if that question had been before the judges, they would have differed with the Mississippi court, and found the charge of malprac- tice actionable per se. Since any written words holding a person up to scorn and ridicule are libellous, it is not necessarv, as in cases of slander, that, in order to viagra availability prescription be actionable, they should refer to the party defamed in his profes- sion. But let a modern instance serve generic viagra montreal to show at once how judges, as well as doctors, disagree in their pro- fessional diagnosis of a case, and how difficult it is to prophesy what will or will not be considered libel by the courts. The Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. spun a little romance of the finding of Farmer Ilam- mell, apparently frozen by the wayside, the proceed- ings before Coroner Purdy, and the resuscitation of the supposed corpse by Dr. Lester. Romance seems to be die proper word, for the general term's opinion states that the publication was " conceded to be false.' Among other things, the newspaper said: "To all ap- pearances the man was frozen : the limb id, the face was pale, the eyes had a glassy look and there was no sign of life. . . . Coroner Purdy ar- rived, summoned a jury, and began to inquire, accord- ing to law, how and by what the man then and there lying dead came to his death. Dr. Lester looked at the supposed remains, and after a careful examination said the man was alive. They I it him. but he insisted so strong!}' that life was still within the stif- fened body, that Nicholas Durnir, a brother-in-law of the deceased, caused the body to be removed to his store. The coroner's inquest \ ; then interrupted, and the inquest and perhaps a funeral was averted." The article then describes the : ion, and con- cludes: " Mr. Hammell can thank Dr. Lester for the fact that the coroner's jury did not return a verdict that he came to his death from exposure, that he was not placed in a coffin generic viagra montreal and generic viagra montreal buried alive, and that his family and friends were not called upon to mourn his unfortunate death." Now viagra availability prescription it so happened that Coro- ner Purdy was also a practising physician and sur- geon; and the publication being concededly false, as generic viagra montreal appears from the opinion of the general term, he brought his action for damages. When the case came to trial, the circuit judge directed a verdict for defend- ant, on the ground that the publication was not libel- lous per generic viagra montreal se, and there was no proof of malice. Plain- tiff appealed to the general term, who granted him a new trial, saying: ""To make the publication libellous per se, it was only necessary that it should tend to bring the plaintiff into obloquy or disgrace, ridicule or disrepute. Can it be said that such was not the