The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-11-15

third toes we're ruptured and her ankle
severely spraincd: that the injury caused
severe and acute pain. Several medicai
men testified for the plaintln that they
had inst measured her foot at various
places and her leg six inches above the
ankle and found II considerably larger
than the other foot. At the point above
the ankle they say that the leg was small
or than the other leg at the same point.
! An equal number OF doctors who had just
measured the injured foot at the same
place swore for the defendant that II was
the same size as the other foot except Ia
measurement OF the leg above the ankle.
which was one-sixtcenth Of an inch larger
I than the other leg at the same point. IL
: will not admit of a doubt that this array
. OF medical men are not all telling the
{ truth. Either the injured foot and leg
were at the points where measured OF the
same size as was the other foot and leg,
OF IL was larger or smaller at some or all
OF the said points OF measurement.
Now, clearly. when such skilled men
differ so radically touching matter OF
mere measurement. as to which any num-
Der Of men lacking I'm skill but possessed
OF ordinary good sense. ought to substan-
TALLY agree because relating 10 fact
capable of exact ascertainment. II was
proper to resort to the practical plan OF
ence OF the court and jury. There Is moth
ing lndehcate in the measurement OF n
foot or arm or ankle in a proper case.
Plaintiff offered no objections to these
measurements being made No ground Of
objection thereto was stated by her coun-
sci. but the court refused to permit II TO
be done. As we have said. the condition
of the foot and ankle was material as
I bearing upon the question OF the per-
mar e1cy of tie injury and the court erred
in not ordering the measurements made
as requested. Because OF the refusal OF
the court 10 permit the measurements
asked for the judgment Is reversed
But the opinion was not unanimous.
Justice Robinson filed a dissenting opn-
ion In which he claimed that the decision
OF the lower court should be sustained.
He said IN part
THE request OF the defendant was that
Mrs. Hall remove her shoes and stockings
In the presence Of the jury. and we may
presume before large audience OF by
ISLANDERS in a crowded court ROOM for the
single purpose Of having her feet and legs
measured in such manner that the jury
might see IT done. In my opinion ii was
not only within the power but il was the
duty of the district court under the cir
allow the desired experiment TO be made.
AS II appears to me it would certainly
have appeared indicate If not positively
Indecent and would have been shocking
and repuisive TO any modest and sensi-
tive woman. il was not shown to be
necessary. The opinion Of the majority.
while disclaiming the adoption OF a rule
applicable to all such cases. does In effect
hold that the District court had no discre-
ton and that in all similar cases the de-
PENDANT may. as a matter or right re-
qure a woman whose injuries are In ques-
ton TO partially disrobe herself in the
presence Of the court jury and members
of the bar and possibly a court room full
of bystanders. and that this may be done
even though other evidence is a the com
mand of the defendant and at hand which
may show that the exhibition Is wholly
unnecessary. / cannot assent to such a
holding"
We are not surprised 10 know that the
finding of the Court OF Appeals does not
meet with popular approval. We can
understand why Southern girl with a
dainty foot might not object to putting II
on modest exhibition under legal duress.
for doesn't The old Southern song say.
IF your foot is pretty show It. No matter
whore or when? But the case Is very
different with a woman whose feet are
reared In the neighborhood OF Chicago
under the influence OF Western vastness.
and especially so when one Of the feet IN
interest had been by accident enlarged and
when one member which the court vul
carly calls "ieg" was smaller (and possi-
bly, longe) than the other member thus
vulgarly denominated. That a woman thus
afflicted should be forced to make pub
lie display Of her deformities. is nothing
less than one Of those outrages which
are proverbially said to be committed in
the name Of Justice