for the defendant, much to the Judge’s satisfaction; who intimated that the vaunting language of the witness _Kingston_ must have diminished his credit with the jury. _Shepherd_ Serjt. and _Espinasse_ were now to have shewn cause: but though all the Court seemed to be satisfied, as well now as when the rule was moved for, that the action well lay for unskilfulness in the profession of a surgeon; yet upon a revision of the evidence as reported, they asked of the plaintiff’s counsel what evidence there was of _want of skill_ in the defendant; _Kingston_, the surgeon, only imputing to him _negligence_ and _carelessness_; which the learned Judge had stated to be a ground of action, and had left to the jury for their consideration; but which the jury had negatived; as indeed the evidence well warranted them in doing. _Gurney_, in support of the rule, said, that it was to be collected from the whole of _Kingston’s_ evidence that he imputed want of skill to the defendant; and that was shewn by the expression used by him, that an apprentice boy might have known better. That so much skill at least was required of a surgeon as to be able to tell whether or not an arm was broken, or an elbow dislocated. But it was enough that the question of want of skill was wholly withdrawn from the consideration of the jury. Lord _Ellenborough_ C. J. The surgeon who was examined specifically imputed the failure of the cure to _negligence_ and _carelessness_, whatever other expression he may have used in the manner of giving his evidence, upon which the learned Judge has commented. Therefore, however we may differ from the learned Judge, as I certainly do, in thinking that an ordinary degree of skill is necessary for a surgeon who undertakes to perform surgical operations; which is proved by the case in _Wilson_, and indeed by all analogous authorities; in the same manner as it is necessary for every other man to have it in the course of his employment; as the farrier who undertakes to cure any horse must have common skill at least in his business, and that is implied in his undertaking: and although I am ready to admit that a surgeon would be liable for _crassa ignorantia_, and would be justly responsible in damages for having rashly adventured upon the exercise of a profession, without the ordinary qualification of skill, to the injury of a patient: yet the question did not arise upon the evidence in this case; for no want of skill was imputed to the defendant: and therefore the opinion of the learned Judge upon that point does not affect the merits of the verdict upon the evidence in the cause. The other Judges concurred; and _Grose_ J. referred to 3 _Blac. Com._ (_ch._ 9. _p._ 163, 4.) as confirming the general doctrine. Rule discharged. APPENDIX. PART II. _Mich. Term. 1821, C. B._