Mr Vandersteen lost his foot but still has to pay.

The Times, Friday, May 6, 1831

Mr Vandersteen in this article is believed to be Joseph Vandersteen, born about 1792.

 

THURSDAY, MAY 5.
  (London Sittings, before Mr. Justice BOSANQUET and a
  Common Jury.)
  MASON V. VANDERSTEEN.

 The plaintiff in this action, who is a surgeon, sought to
 recover the sum of 7l. 2s. from the defendant, who keeps a
 shop on the Surrey side of Blackfriars-bridge, for professional
 attendance upon the latter, who had been afflicted with a frost-
 bitten toe ever since the year 1802. The defence set up was,
 that the plaintiff had agreed to attend the defendant on the
 terms of no cure no pay; in support of which a witness
 named George Payne, was called, who swore that having
 derived benefit from the plaintiff's skill himself he had re-
 quested of him to attend the defendant, whom, how-
 ever; he represented to him as too poor to pay, unless
 a cure were effected, in which case the plaintiff would be
 compensated for his trouble. The plaintiff desired to see
  the defendant, and having visited him, he continued to
  attend him and supply him with medicines for a considerable
  time. He did not, however, succeed in effecting a cure, and
  consequently the defendant was obliged to have his foot am-
  putated. The plaintiff sent in his bill, and the defendant ob-
  jecting to pay it on the above ground, the present action was
  commenced, on which Payne, who was confined in the King's
  Bench prison, wrote to him, reminding him of the terms on
  which be had engaged him to attend the defendant, and of-
  fering, at the same time, to pay him 3l., on condition of his
  foregoing proceedings against the defendant, whom he repre-
  sented to be a poor man with a large family. To this letter
  the plaintiff replied, that he had never made any such agree-
  ment as the one referred to, either on the present or any other
  occasion.
  The Jury, after some deliberation, returned a verdict for
  the plaintiff, - damages 5l, 5s., the plaintiff having received
  goods from the defendant to the amount of the difference be-
  tween the above sum and the plaintiff's account.