“The Boston correspondent of _The Northwestern Lancet_ writes: 'Dr. A., a reputable practitioner living in a New England city, attended Mr. B. for a fractured thigh. The case did well, and the patient recovered without deformity. No measurements were recorded by the attending surgeon, but he was able to swear that the result was to him perfectly satisfactory. A year or two later the patient entered suit against Dr. A. for malpractice, and exhibited a leg considerably shortened and deformed. A jury at once found a verdict for the plaintiff, and awarded damages in some six or seven thousand dollars, a sum which seriously crippled the physician. He devoted his energies thereafter to discovering what he believed to be a fraud, and finally obtained evidence that B. had, subsequently to his recovery under A.'s attendance, again fractured the same thigh while in the Adirondack wilderness, and had, on that occasion, had no surgical attendance whatever. The physician was able to recover his money, but was at the expense of his detectives' and lawyers' fees, to say nothing of years of anxiety and of damage to his professional reputation.'” The case of Drs. Reed and Ford of Norwalk, Ohio, will be remembered by many Cleveland physicians. Miss Pierce, a comely young lady, sustained a Colles fracture, and was attended by Drs. Reed and Ford. Suit was brought twice in county court and dismissed because plaintiff did not desire to try the case. A few days before the case was outlawed, suit was brought in the United States Court at Cleveland. Many physicians were called on both sides, and the testimony of all the physicians, with probably one exception, was that the treatment was good and the result better than is usual with such fractures. Flexion extension, pronation and supination were perfect. She had, however, the power, when the arm was midway between pronation and supination, of bending the wrist toward the radius, and by making the head of the ulna prominent she was able to make an apparent deformity. Her case, then, was her ability to make an apparent deformity by twisting her wrist. (She could do the same with the unfractured wrist.) She was a good-looking woman, and therefore entitled to sympathy. She followed up the case persistently for six years, therefore there must be some merit in the case. The doctors all testified against her, so there was a combination of the doctors which must not be countenanced. Upon this strong case twelve intelligent jurors awarded thirteen hundred dollars damages. The judge subsequently reduced this to five hundred. Is it any wonder, when such things can be done in the State of Ohio, in the name of justice, that physicians like old Dr. Kirtland refused to attend cases of fracture under any circumstances? or that it is not unusual to hear surgeons of recognized ability say they dare not possess property for fear of suits for damages?