The plaintiff’s brother-in-law proved, on his behalf, that on the 2d of _April_ 1805, the defendant attended the plaintiff, who had fallen from a horse, and told the defendant that his arm was broken: the defendant said that he thought the arm, which was swollen, was not broken, and applied vinegar to it, and bound it with tape. That the plaintiff was under the defendant’s care for ten weeks without being cured: he could not bend his arm or work at his trade. That he then applied to Mr. _Kingston_, another surgeon, and after some time could work, and put his arm to his head. On cross-examination the same witness proved that the defendant was first sent for at night, and came directly; that he regularly attended the plaintiff every day but one till the latter applied to Mr. _Pidcock_, another surgeon, who, about nine or ten days after the accident, attended and assisted with the defendant in setting the elbow. Mr. _Kingston_, the surgeon, then proved that in _July_ 1805 the plaintiff was brought to him a cripple in his arm, one bone of which was broken obliquely below the elbow. That the plaintiff’s arm was almost straight; he could not turn his wrist, and had no motion in his elbow. That the witness broke the callous and set it again, and made (what the witness himself described as) a very fine cure, which was spoken of about the country. He imputed the failure of the defendant in his attempt to cure the plaintiff to _negligence and carelessness_: an apprentice boy (he said) might have known better: that the bone might have been set within five hours after the accident; though he admitted that the swelling, if much, must first be reduced, which might take a fortnight. And he recommended the plaintiff to bring an action. He also spoke to a conversation with the defendant, who considered it as a very difficult dislocation to reduce; and said that he would make a compensation to the plaintiff. The learned Judge told the jury that the gist of the action was negligence; of which direct evidence might be given; or it might be inferred by the jury, if the defendant had proceeded without any regard to the common ordinary rules of his profession, _That unskilfulness alone, without negligence, would not maintain the action_. And that he was at a loss to state to the jury what degree of skill ought to be required of a village surgeon. But that, whether or not his direction were accurate in this respect, at any rate the witness _Kingston_ imputed only _negligence_ and _carelessness_ to the defendant and _Pidcock_, in not discovering the fracture of the bone of the arm when they reduced the dislocated elbow; which there was no doubt was properly reduced: and that considering all the circumstances of the case, he did not think that such gross negligence was imputable to the defendant as to make him liable in damages to the plaintiff. The report concluded by stating that the jury found a verdict