throat, was sufficient evidence to carry the question of negligence to the jury, to the end that they might determine whether, in the light of all the circumstances, the defendants had exercised the skill and care which the exigencies of the case required. This ruling was correct” [440]. Boyle’s case is an interesting one on the subject of the use of chloroform. He was a street-car driver; a vicious horse by a kick threw him from his platform, so that he hit his head against a tree-box. He was picked up insensible and carried into a surgery; this he was enabled to leave |165| in a couple of hours, and the following day went to work again. In course of time he had a toothache, and went to a Dr. Winslow’s to have it extracted, intending to take chloroform. The chloroform was administered, but did not operate as soon as usual, exciting rather than tranquilizing B. Insensibility, however, having been finally obtained, the teeth were taken out, the doctor giving the anæsthetic from time to time during the operation, as symptoms of returning consciousness appeared. Boyle walked home shortly afterwards, feeling, however, dizzy, and being uncertain in his gait; these unpleasant symptoms continued even after reaching his house. The next day, thickness of speech and numbness of one arm and side came on, with partial paralysis. From this he was still suffering, when a jury was called upon to say whether his state was due to the neglect of the dentist or not. The Judge told the jury that, even if they doubted the safety of the agent employed (chloroform), there was still a consideration of the highest reason which they ought not to disregard. He remarked, “All science is the result of a voyage of exploration, and the science of medicine can hardly be said to have yet reached the shore. Men must be guided therefore by what is probably true, and are not responsible for their ignorance of the absolute truth which is not known. If a medical practitioner resorts to the acknowledged proper sources of information—if he sits at the feet of masters of high reputation and does as they have taught him—he has done his duty, and should not be made answerable for the evils that may result from errors in the instruction which he has received. * * * He who acts according to the best known authority is a skilful practitioner, although that authority should lead him in some respects wrong. * * * If the plaintiff was from previous circumstances predisposed to paralysis, it might well happen that the extraction of his teeth, |166| without the chloroform, or the use of the chloroform without the extraction, would bring on a paralytic attack. Even if this was the case, still it would not be just to make the defendant answerable for consequences which he could not foresee, which were not the ordinary or probable result of what he did. He was only bound to look to what was natural and probable, to what might reasonably be anticipated. Unless such