'The complaint sets forth that on November 22, 1923, the plaintiff's husband handed to' defendants a written by Dr. Reiss calling for a certain ointment for the cure of dobie itch. On November 23 Dr. Reiss informed the plaintiff that the ointment could be used by plaintiff as well as by her husband. On November 26 the plain-if inquired if defendants could duplicate the prescription. The defendants said unqualifiedly that the prescription could be filled accurately from the records. The defendants failed to deliver the ointment ordered but negligently and known to the plaintiff substituted another and dangerous compound which fact was unknown to the until she was badly jared by its use, suffering intense pain, being confined to her bed and sustaining, internal injuries from which she'can never recover, her health and activities of mind being permanently impaired. It is further alleged that the defendant was through these injuries unable to ere for her infant child.
Mr. Guignard, husband of the ntiff, said that on the evening November 26 the second ointment was received, but was not examined or used by him, His wife retired early and he was reading in his study when he heard her ery out in agony, and he found her in great pain. ' He then learned that she had used the new ointment, and on comparing the two ointments he found that they differed in colour and the numbers were different. He telephoned to the drug store and went for Dr. Reiss, who gave a soothing. lotion. His wife suffered extreme pain at the time and was still sub-Jeet to nervous seizures.
Mr. Guignard denied that his wife previously had been neurothenic.
The plaintiff substantiated her husband's evidence, adding that as she still suffered from nervous attacks she had to keep very quiet, not being able to see many people without subsequent exhaustion, When she was examined by physic-jans in February internal growths were found.
O'Hara stated that he could not find any other cause for plai tift's condition except the use of the second ointment, although other irritation might have produced it, Dr. J. E. Murray stated that he examined plaintiff previous to the use of his ointment and found her in perfectly healthy condition and that it was quite possible the growths had been caused by the second ointment.
Mr. Henry" Schloten, general manager of the defendant company ime the ointments in ques-compounded, said that, unless the physician gave the name of the patient for whom the preintended, no record of the patient's name wax put on their records.
Shmoulevsky, of the pharmacy department of the def dant company, testified to refilling the prescription according to a number left on his desk. He had no knowledge of the patient for whom the ointment was intended, but said that it was an ordinary formula, The case was adjourned.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.