The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1885-10-23
DIR. WISHARD GETS EXCITED
And Vigorously Protests Against DR..
Rdpath's Methods of Inquiry,
Which He DenOunces as Contemplate and
COwardly-Testimony Elected in the
Investigation Last Evening.


Council. Doctor Ridpath at the outset. re-
quested of the board fifteen minutes more before
the defendant began his side of the case. He
claimed to have new evidence. to which DR..
Wishard replied that he had do objection, pro-
vided the Doctor would 60 upon the stand for
his examination directly afterwards. The new
testimony for the prosecution came from w. j.
Rosebrock, who in 1881 delivered feed at the
hospital. One afternoon in the fall of last year,
while taking load to the hospital farm, he
looked for the then janitor Jesse DeHaven. He
found him behind the barn burying or reburying
human skeleton of some size, with part of the
decomposed flesh on it. It gave forth an
offensive odor. DeHaven told him that he got
the body from the barn. and not from the dead
house. and that DR.. Wishard told him to bury it
behind the barn. On examination, the
witness said he was asked once by DR.. Ridpath
to come and testify, and that was Wednesday
afternoon and the Doctor came tn him at Fred
Gainsburg's coal and coke Office, where he
clerks. Dr. Rocker introduced the witness
to DR.. Ridpath. After this witness left the
stand Ridpath stated that he had seen Jesse De
Haven yesterday afternoon, who confirmed Rose
brooks statement but this was objected to un-
less the Doctor intended to call De Haven as
witness. He said De Haven could not appear
that evening on account Of other and urgent
business.
The prosecution called to the stand Ralph
Perry. once employed at the City Hospital about
two months. from May until July, this year.
Part Of the time he was junior house physician
and before that in the drugroom. The obstet-
RI "a
witness saying that he would tell only what he
personally knew in regard to the patient He
first attended Maggie, but on account of sore
hand, turned her over to DR.. Wishard. A boy
baby was born. badly lacerated and puerperal
fever set in. Wishard had the case about three
weeks, altogether, whe4. the witness resumed
the care of the patient. She got we'll. He said
he had been warned not to appear before the
board Cross examined, he said he mad seen the
history chart kept by Dr. Wishard relating to
Maggie Lynch, and thought from that he
gave her very close attendance. He be-
lieved it was good treatment and further
know that DR.. Wishard ever neglected his own
or other patients in the hospital The witness
said he did not think DR.. Wishard had anything
to do with the threats against him for consentng
to testify in the Investigation. DR.. Perry then
became witness for the defense One after
noon, while he was at the hospital, he and Helen
Mccormick were sitting in hammock DR..
Ridpath came into the yard, and Helen. jumping
out of the hammock, said, Why, there comes
Rddy. / must go to see him." question to
bring out anything DR.. Perry might have heard
DR.. Eastman say in regard to the charges against
Wishard was objected to by Ridpath The OBJ
lection rested upon the claim that Wishard had
not as yet presented his case, and it was not
known that he intended to take up the question
of conspiracy on the line of defense. 1t was set
tied by the witness standing aside for few min
utes, until DR.. Wishard had given general out
line of what he intended to prove.
nr ic}. off lv hot bo, ION
ed to prove against the charges that had been
presented. Taking up the first charge-that of
neglecting employees. which has ten specifca
tions-he said he intended to disprOve each one
of them. The charges and specifications, which
have been fully covered by the evidence for the
prosecution. were reviewed and on every point
the Doctor proposed to introduce opposing test
mony In reference to the fifth charge and
specifications attending thereon. covering undue
familiarity with nurses, he proposed to prove
that this was suggested in the interest of con-
spiracy by one of the conspirators He also said
he would enter into facts establishing that the
whole investigation was the result of conspir
acy. of which Dr. Ridpath was the tool.
The testimony of DR.. Perry was then resumed
and the question to which objection had been
| made being repeated Dr. Rdpath again OBJ.
jected, as he said the point of con-
spiracy in which DR.. Eastman had an interest
did not enter into the investigation. The board
decided that DR.. Perry should answer the ques-
ton, which related to a conversation the wit
ness had with DR.. Eastman, in which
the latter proposed to spend money to secure the
conviction of Wshard on the charges against
him. The witness declined to answer. He also
refused to answer a question referring to What
he had heard DR.. Eastman say at Dr. Todds
Office In regard to having Dr. Wishard written
up in pamphlet. which was to be printed by DR..
Eastmans brother, in New York, and sent to
Indianapolis to be distributed broadcast This
was to be done to infame public opinion against
Wishard pending the investigation. He refused
| to answer that he heard DR.. Eastman say on
that occasion that he would also have Wishard
written up and caricatured in the People. He
acknowledged to being in DR.. Todd's office at the
time. and that there was fourth person present,
whom he did not know.
The defense ther put DR. Ridpath on the stand,
who said that he had never inquired particularly
whether hospital superintendent accompanied
house physicians their regular rounds.
He knew that Miss Hunt was in DR.. Wishards
room an nour and half one night, because he
saw her go in there: but when asked how he
knew the length of the time she remained then
the reply was, II don't know that tina: is neces-
sary to state, but know she was there an hour
and half"
Dr. Wishard-Then we are at liberty to infer
You were behind doors playing the spy.
Dr. Ridpath-You can infer what you please
The question of conspiracy was touched upon
by asking DR.. Ridpath the names of his attor-
neys. He answered that they were Mr.. Spaan,
Captain Ritter and Mr.. Foster. He had not en-
ployed any other attorneys.
DR.. Wishard-Were you at a consultation in
Duncan, Smith & Wilson's Office?
Dr. Rdpath-Yes was; but I do not see
that that has anything to do with this matter.
Dr. Wishard-Dr. Todd was there. Mr. Foster,
who is a brother-in-law of Dr. Eastman. was
there. and l propose to show this was in the in
terest Of the conspiracy.
Dr. RdpathDr. Wishard is repeatedly bring
ing up this charge of conspiracy. Once all, re
fuse to answer any questions tending that way
This witness gave way to Miss Emma Iddings.
who testified that DIR. Wishard was attentive to
patients. that the institution was in good order,
and that Mamie Ford. who had been treated by
Dr. Morrow, and afterward by Dr.. Wishard.
had said she would have died if it had not been
for the latter Miss Iddings, the nurse of Fior-
renee Barnes, said the removal of this patient
was to comfortable and clean room. in which
| fire was always kept. Her testimony regarding
this directly conlradicted all the euidanca Of thu