This was an action on the case brought by the plaintiff, a shoemaker, against the defendant, whom he employed as a surgeon, for negligently, ignorantly, and unskilfully reducing a dislocated elbow and fractured arm of the plaintiff, of which he had undertaken the cure. The cause was tried before _Heath_ J. at the last assizes at _Hertford_; and a verdict having been given for the defendant under the direction of the learned Judge; that direction was now impeached, and a rule _nisi_ for setting aside the verdict and granting a new trial was moved for by _Gurney_, upon the ground that there was evidence laid before the jury of the _unskilful_ treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant; but that they were told by the learned Judge, that unless _negligence_ were proved, they could not examine into the _want of skill_: and the evidence, he now admitted, did not substantiate the charge of _negligence_, though it proved the want of skill. And he referred to _Slater_ v. _Baker_[178], to shew that an action lay against a surgeon for ignorance and unskilfulness in his profession: and to _Bull, N. P. 73._ where the general rule is laid down, that in all cases where a damage accrues to another by the negligence, ignorance, or misbehaviour of a person in the duty of his trade or calling, an action on the case will lie: as if a farrier kill my horse by bad medicines, or refuse to shoe, or prick him in the shoeing. The Court granted a rule _nisi_. And now, upon the Judge’s Report being read, the case appeared to be this: