The Republican journal., 1870-05-05
Dandaged eyes-talkcd with Mrs. Howcs-shc said
there was film over them-she said he could re-
move it himself, or get DR.. Monroe to do it.
Defence here announced their evidence all in.

Defence here announced their evidence all in.
EVIDENCE FOR PLAINTIFF RESUMED.
Isaac n. Worthing, sworn. Live in Belfast
have worked years at making lime in Thomaston
often got ulslacked lime i'll my eyes, wash 1t out
al end OF days work with vinegar-have got very
little mortar in my eves--new lime affects me most
-~never received serious harm at the lime kns,
nor knew OF one-one Of my eyes was destroyed by
accident railroad-knOW masons and their
TenderS-knoW no one whose eyes were hurt by
line.
Cross Examined Always apply vinegar at once
never waited II days.
Mrs. Holmes, recalled. Heard DR.. Monroe $
teStimony-was the woman in room that he testi-
fed to--he did not orler bowl of water before ap-
pllcation-nonc was used until Notwithstanding
said about puS, or matter, or blindness Mrs III
testified to application substantially as Howes tes-
tiedl came to Howes house night before applica-
ilon-liowes helped me out of carriage-appllct-
uon made about o'clock-IioWes took tea the
evening before.-I saw no blindness-he took
breakfast next mornng-had no bandage on-he
brought in wood and water that morning.
Mrs Howes, recalled. My husband came to my
room on morning of application, and examined
nj eye he asked me to look at it and see if
anything was in it-there was no matter in it-he
lad not been blind up to that tme-heard DR.. Mon
roe say he was sent for to visit Mr. HoweS-he was
not sent for--I had no one to send-Dr. Pendleton
.id 10 me that if he had done such thing he
couldn't seep-I sent DR.. Flanders to Mr. Jewett-
t1ld him perhaps we should have a sult-he said
The eyes had been treated badly-no recollection of
telling Mr.. Parker as testfed-know of no cold
1iEen.
IIowe>, pff. recalled, and testified principally
-, contradiction of DR.. Monroe.
Win>Iow B. Holmes, sworn. Live in Swanvillc
when brought my wife to the house of HoweS,
came and helped her out-mOrning of the same
,iay llOWeS went with me to the other house and
tic got a calf from barn-I did not get out-he got
The calf and tied his legs.
Fle plaintiff here announced testimony all in.
The court adjourned to Monday.
The arguments We're made Monday morning,
t.en. Nckrrson and Mr.. Jewett, occupying about
IN hour AMI half each In the afternoon Judge
Dickcrson delivered his charge, which is conceded
all hands TO have been of great ability and entire
nupaltality. The following is report, furnished
by the official stenographer, Mr.. Pulsifer-
GENILEMES OF THE JURY; The plaintiff alleges in
upon some mortar and spater OF it was thrown into
ais eye, and that in consequence of that his eye
day thercabouts, of May the defendant having been
called to visit the plaintiff was requested by the wife,
and examine his eye, that time,
immediately subsequent to that time the defendant did
call upon the plaintiff to examine bis eye and repeated
nnsnly, negligenty and recklessly, that he has en-
Of this mareatment OF his eye BY the defendant, the
plaintiff claims that he Is entitled to recover damages
Before calling your attention to the testimony in the
it is proper that should understand the nature
when he treats patient and it is substantially
engages that he possesses that degree of know
edge and skill in his profession that is ordinarily pos
-essed by educated men in his profession of the same
place country where he practices and secondly he
'ngages that in the application Of that knowledge and
l 10 particular cases he will also evince that degree
M care diligence and attention that is ordinarily exer
cised BY the same class of professional men.
Farther that in the treatment of cases he will give
he patient his best Judgment He does not engage to
of the limb affected, is the fact Of his promising
ordinary or not or exercising ordinary not
dependent upon the result OF his treatment He is not
Judgment, provided
cises in the that degree of judgment and kind of
discretion which men in his profession ordinarily exer'
in such cases
these are substantially the principles Of law which
oyern in this far relates to the defendant
But there obligations also devolving upon the plain
H the patient lie is required to follow the directions
the surgeon physician called treat him. and
does not and In consequence of this dsobedience the
disease ia aggravated the Injury rendered more
ihe loss himself
Sow gentlemen apply these principles of law so far
propose to recapitulate all the testimony, or any
~iderablc portion of it, 1t is Of such character, has
eh 50 clearly stated to you by the witnesses themselves
e one side and the other, that you hardly fail to
emembef the material facts testified to by all the wit
nessea 1t is your duty to arrive at the truth in this
case to follow the testimony, examine it, compare it,
,nlt your Judgment shall be true and legitimate
and in order to arrive at the truth may be proper
IKE m m e h a ma Tt Place & "a to % the t mature
Stance II was lime. mortar What result, from the
6w IN the you & mgt or no M
eye. What is the testimony in regard the erect
sstruc!e nature, necessarily ordinarily or probably
usually What is the inference be derived from
the testimony introduced by the plaintiff and the defend
ant in regard to the effect the positive, direct effect of
lime upon the eye mean the effect which the wit
nesses themselves have experienced upon their
persons conradisngushed from that testified to by
rXpers. Examine the testimony then coming from the
witnesses who have experienced the effects of the app
eation OF mortar upon the eye. And consider the time
had been in the eye prior the defendants visit the
plaintiff and then consider what would probably be the
condition OF the that time Then consider farther
the testimony introduced by the experts they
called, men who testified not from the knowledge arising
from the effects of the application of lime mortar up
on their persons, but from the knowledge which
'ey have OF the science of medicine and of the effect
thry have seen it have upon Others And do you get
any light from those witnesses in regard to what the
e plaintiff Was The ye at that time slightly injured,
named or excited or was it very seriously infamed,
parttled with matter, and most horrible to look at.
Then what other circumstances are there in the evil
dencc tending to show in what condition the eye
~hen the defendant called If there any SUCH
del them. Testimony has been introduced here, in
regard to statements made by the wife, subsequently
yera occasiona in regard TO the nature of the injury
originally and the manner in which it had been aggra
lated by exposure to the wet Consider the testimony
hewnesses TO that point. Mr.. Parker, Mrs. Reeves
md such other witness there are if there any
me effect that the plaintiffs wife had said several
"3ons substantially that her husband got spatterng
Gt lime in his eye, that he exposed himself to the wet
and that aggravated the disease inamed his eyes, and
brought them into the condition in which they were
New are you satisfied that she made these declarations
and you are, what effect ought they to haves She does
not recoec to have said she does recolec that
dd specially as she take cold that his eyes
>pecially iniamed If this exposure took place. These
witnesses the contrary undertake repeat state
nts in regard it, She herself testifes that she did
request the Doctor when he there visiting her tC
all upon her husband. Mrs Holmes also testies that
he bandage his eyes when he went out doors
but in the house usually took off that she was there
ay or wo three days in all that before the Dr. came
me dlibculY with the plaintiffs eyes of slight
character that their condition did attract his atten
lion, that SHE did not look at his eyes. That is her tes
,nony.
Then further gentlemen, consider the testimony with
regard 10 his eyes the condition Of his eyes with respect
10 his ability to at the time the defendant was called
l" visit the plaintiff. Call to your mind the testimony
hrs. Howes. Mrs. Holmes, and Mr. Holmes, upon tina,
1ect and see whether not the day that the frs
Pplcaton was made whether it was the 2Gth of May
the Both, what the condition his vision was from
say. MIR. Holmes and Mrs. Holmes the morning thai
The application made, and the night before and
Hys before. Then on the other hand, you have heard
he testimony of Mr. Collins who claims to have seen
hm prior this visit of Dr. Monroe on the Sd of MAY
out door3, IN condition such you would expect of
than somewhat affected with blindness would be- should
he undertake to move about Then there is the testi
when he first HEM He says that when saw
them the 2Gth, he has recollection of making any
application to them, but at that time they
much intamed granulaton, as he termed it. had com
nenced and there was an appearance OF film the
at that time, that they somewhat disorganiZed
and he fearful that the plaintiff would lose his eye
sight entirely that upon extending his hand in front
could not low tha2 Certain it is that the DR.
had not the control OF the tongue, the vision of tn.
plaintiff. He could not from his own knowledge, except
from the appearance of the eye, determine whether the