
    Genay against Norris.
    A physician son,0tIlpatthg into'T* glass wine'or other vessel, and prevailing on another to draught, is dfetive10 da-" mages.
    SPECIAL action on the case. The defendant, who was a physician, and others, living at or near Jacksonborough, one evening, after drinking freely, got the plaintiff, Genay, w^° was a foreigner, and then in company, intoxicated; and it was so contrived, that the defendant and plaintiff ¶ 1 should quarrel, and in order to adjust this quarrel, pistols were introduced, and, by the connivance of those who act-e(^ as seconds in this sham dispute, powder was fired off at each other; after which, the parties were prevailed on to make friends. As soon as this pretended reconciliation took place, it was proposed that the disputants should drink a glass of wine together, when it appeared that the defendant contrived to put into the plaintiff’s glass or tumbler, a large potion of cantharides, or some preparation made from them, which the plaintiff, in his agitation, (for he was the only person who thought the altercation serious,) drank off. He then went home, and was soon after seized with very acute pains ; upon which he sent to Doctor Wallace, a neighbouring physician, who declared on the trial, that when he first saw his patient, he found him in extreme and excruciating pain, from the quantity of cantharides he had drank, and remained so for near a fortnight, and that he was not free from the effects of the potion for several months after.
    This was a case which required little or no comment; of course little was said by the plaintiff’s counsel on the subject.
    On the part of the defendant it was urged, that the whole transaction was nothing more than what is usually termed a drunken frolic, and no injury was seriously intended. That the defendant mistook the quantity poured into the glass ; that he did not put so much, he thought, as would by any means injure him.
   The Court,

in charging the jury, told them, that this was a very wanton outrage upon a stranger in the country. That notwithstanding it was called a frolic, yet the proceedings appeared to be the result of a combination, which wrought a very serious injury to the plaintiff, and such a one as entitled him to very exemplary damages, especially from a professional character, who could not plead ignorance of the operation and powerful effects of this medicine.

Verdict for plaintiff, 400/. damages.  