Evening journal., 1896-12-12
DAMAGE CASE GOES OYER.
COURT DECLARES A RECESS UN-
TIL MONDAY IN THE $4,000 CITY
SUIT.

TIL MONDAY IN THE $4,000 CITY
SUIT.
In continuing the $4,000 damage
suit against the city of Wilmington,
entered by Mrs. l.. M Ewing. in SUI
perior Court. yesterday afternoon, Luz
ther w. Ewing, husband of the in
jured woman. took the stand at 2.30
o'clock He swore that his wife had
to crawl upstairs on her hands and
knees.
Or. Henry Patterson swore that he
attended Mrs. Ewing from January,
1895, to July. 1896. He first found her
foot swollen and tender to the touch,
caused by a severe strain.
DR.. Peter N. Tomlinson testified to
examining the woman and finding her
in the same condition as DR.. 'atterson.
on April II. He could not say that
the foot would never be wc... but il
was very serious. On cross-examina-
tion. he said that Mrs Ewing was a
little imprudent in not calling In a
physician at the time OF the accident.
but he thought that the excuse given
by the woman that her husband was
out of work was a good one.
Or. J. H. Morgan testified that he
had made a photograph OF the ankle
with the aid of the X-rays He SAID
that he got a good photograph Mr..
Knowles objected to this testimony on
the grounds that the physician was
giving expert testimony The court
did not sustain the objection, stating
that the N-rays was a modern science.
| Mr.. Knowles then asked that the pho
/ tograph be brought into court Dr.
/ Morgan, continuing, said that before
/ putting the X-rays on the foot he
/ found the ankle swollen, tender to the
/ touch. He said that the negative dis
closed an Inflammation of the oscitis,
/ which had resulted In the death of a
/ part of the bone. AT this point Lniei
/ Justice Lore asked DR.. Morgan If he
was testiiying from what the negative
! disclosed. He said that he was The
court then ordered the doctor to go
after the picture, and Mr.. Knowles
won Lis point.
Attorney Chandler then swore w. j
Hall and proceeded to question him a.
TO the condition of the scene of this
accident just prior TO the occurrence
but the citys attorneys objected.
The whole essence of the fight how
ever, was as TO the admissibility cl
Halls testimony as to the condition o
that particular place on Ninth street
! where this accident is said e
have occurred. and as to how
long it had remained in tn,
condition it was at the time Mrs
Ewing met her mishap. This evidence
if admitted, would place upon the city
constructive notice of its condition, es
tGblish negligence and their liability
for the injury sustained.
The point was raised by Mr.. KNOWLES
that the evidence was not admissible
because of the fact that there was nl
averment in the plaintiffs narr as q
+ anysienRth OF time, that the place wa
2 i'm bad condition, or that any notice
! actual or constructive. was brougf
J home to the city.
This point as to the imperfection q
the narr was argued at length on bot
? sides and Ii was decided b.
the court that the objec
tion raised by Mr.. Knowles was
proper one and the evidence as to no
p tice was ruled out entirely by IN
court.
There was nothing left for tn
plaintiffs attorney to do but TO as
permission Of the court to amend hi
b. pleadings which the court granted
giving him until Monday to do 50.