Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1896-12-17

William b. Carswel, civil engineer
and surveyor. submitted plan Of the
sidewalk where the accident is
alleged to have occurred. The gutter
plato was broken at both ends, the end
nearest the curb having one corner
broken of, while the end nearest the
building line was broken off about 7
inches. The distances and measure
ments were fully explained.
Mrs. Sydney E. Ewing, the victim OF
the accident, was next called to the
stand. AS she walked from the ladies'
parlor, she limped very perceptibly,
using parasol as support. She
detailed the circumstances of the
accident. She was on her way home
from temperance lecture in Grace
Church, accompanied by Mrs. Shultz.
She stepped into tho gutter, the two
sections OF the plate being separated, and
spraineu her right ankle. For three
months Mrs. Ewing treated the foot
berself, her husband being out of work
at the time. Then she called in DIR.
Patterson. Later DIR, Tomlinson was
called in for cosultation and DR.. Morton
OF Philadelphia also treated the wit
ness. She used crutehes for 10 months,
and the foot still causes her much pain.
Ms. Dora Shultz of No. 1l26 Poplar
street, was with Mrs. Ewing when the
accident occurred, and corroborated her
testimony.
On cross ss-examination Mrs Sbult2
testified to passing the scene of the
accident On their way TO the. church,
but did not uotice anything the
matter with the pavement. She also
said that Mrs. Ewing now lives in
Alexandria, Va.
Court adjourned until 2.30 o'clock.
Luther w. Ewing, husband of the
plaintiff, was called to the stand, when
court rgconvened Friday afternoon.
He testified that when Mrs. Ewing
arrived home on tine night of the
accident, che as limping and was un-
able to walk up stairs and had to crawl
up on her hands and knees She never
complained of weakness before.
DR.. Henry Patterson testified that
he was called in January, 1895, to
attend Mrs. Ewing. He found her
suffering from sprained ankle. He was
told that she had been bathing it with
warm water and using liniInent. He
ordered a continuance OF this treatment.
He was first called in thres months
after the accident occurred. In answer
to question Of Mr.. Knowles, DR.. Patter-
son said he did not think prompt
attention OF a physician would have
tended to heal the injury sooner. He
said the plaintiff may never entirely
recover from her injuries.
DIR. p. w. Tomlinson testified that
he was called in by DR.. Patterson to
examine Mrs. Ewing's ankle on April
l7th, 1895.
He found the ankle very much
swollen and sensitive to the touch. In
his opinion it was imprudent not to
have called in a physician as soon as
the accident happened. He stated that
the witness may and may not recover
from her Injuries
DR.. James II. Morgan was the star
witness OF the afternoon. He said that
Dr. Patterson made arrangements with
him to take an X-ray photograph of
the injured ankle in June of this year.
He had secured very good negative
after 35 minutes expos Ire. He thon
went on to explain what the negative
disclosed Mr.. Knowles objected, on
the ground that the negative should be
offered in evidence the same as a chart
or other photograph. The court ruled
that the evidence was admissible, as il
was merely the statement of his
methods of treatment by the latest
scientific processes. The doctor then
described what the X-rays showed in
Mrs. Ewing's ankle. After he had
described the photograph, Chief J Justice
Lore asked the witness II he still had
the plate. He replied in tho atfirma-
tive and the Court directed him to
produce it in court
While DIR. Morgan was away William
j. Hall, who lives at No. 902 Orange
street, was called TO the stand. Mr..
Chandler endeavored TO prove by the
witness that tho gutter plate had been
in bad condition for some time previous
to the accident. Mr.. Knowles promptly
objected to this line of testimony,
claiming that there was no Rverment in
the narr of liability on the part of
the city previous to the time the
accident was alleged to have occurred,
and therefore the evidence was not
admissible. After bearing argumsnt
on both sides on the point, the court
sustained MIR. Knowles objections.
Mr.. Elliott here informed the court
that one of the jurors could not get
home except by certain train aud
the case was continued until 10 o'clock
Monday morning, until which time
court also adjourned.
During the interval between the ad
journment of court on Friday afternoon
anu the opening of court Monday morn
ing, Lilburne Chandler, counsel for
plaintiff in the damage suit Of Ewing
vs.. the Mayor and Council Of Whining
ton had prepared his amendments TO the
narr in the case, and they were admitted
by counsel for the defence without
opposition. but Mr.. Hartman. who had
come to the aid of Messrs Elliott and
Knowles. for the city, asked for a con-
tinuance until the February term, as
the amendments offered would compel
the CITY to entirely rearrange their
line of testimony. Williim S. Hilles,
who had been called as associate with
Mr.. Chandler for the plaintiff. promptly
objected to any further continuance of
the case, he contonding that the very
facts as stated in the original narr gave
them ample notice Of what line of
defenoe they must follow. But Mr..
lIilles was satisfied to take recess
until noon to give opportunity to pro-
pare their witnesses. Mr.. Harman,
however, WAS satisfied to go on. Mr..
Elliott then offered an affidavit, the
purpose of which was to pave the way
for a motion TO require the plaintiff TO
give security for costs in the case, the
testimony having shown that she ia