The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1899-12-16

Injured by Submission to the OK
Ray" Process of Diagnosis - De-
cisiOns in Other Cases
Justice Mitchell. of the supreme court.
in decision yesterday, declines to com
NIT so high a tribunal as the supreme
court to the general proposition that
plaintiffs in damage suits must submit
themselves to ''X-ray'' photography. to
ascertain whether their cervical vertebrae
nave been tied in bow knots, or whether
hoating rib may have been tied down
with some sort of a sinker. Justice
mitchell is willing to concede that the
rays discovered by DR.. Roentgen have
made some startling disclosures, but he is
not prepared, in his last few days on the
oehch, to lay it down that the courts
snail take judicial notice of the expert
ness and erudition of an operator in a
scientific process. now young, but In
which, in few years, amateurs may be
as numerous as they are nowadays with
hand sun cameras
The syllabus of the decision which ap-
plies is as follows:
julius Wittenberg respondent VS. T. K
Onsgard, appellant.
.oyIIabus-A medical expert, having in
MS evidence In chief diagnosed the injury
TO the plaintiff as dlslocation of the
cerV1cal vertebrate complicated with a
fracture. and having then testified, with
out quallncation or limitation that the
accepted treatment of a diSIOca ton of
cerV!ca1 Yertebrae. as laid down by the
medlcal authorities, was a reduction of
the d1SlOcatIOn, was asked on croSS-exam-
NATION whether a certain work admit
tea by him to be a standard authority
ara not lay down that where the dislo-
cauon was complicated with a fracture.
no physician would be justified in at
tempting to reduce the diSIocatton Held
? that this was proper cross-examnation,
ana that 1t was error to exclude the
question.
All hypothetical questions put to an ex-
pert witness must be based upon facts
admitted or established or which if con-
Structed might be legltimatey found by
the jury from the evidence. They should
also embody all the facts relating to the
subject upon which the opinion OF the wit
ness Is asked: A certain hypothetical
question held to have been improperly al
lowed because not including all the facts
bearing upon the subject upon which the
opinion OF the witness was asked and also
because 1t was based in part upon fact
not admitted or established and which
there was no evidence tending to prove
Inc court may disregard d waiver of
a jury trial by the parties, and require
the issues to be submitted to a jury. The
matter is addressed to his sound discre-
ton. The waiver of jury in this case
court at which it was made.
Held also that an application of the de-
PENDANT to the court to require the plant
If to submit his neck to be photographed
by the use OF the Roentgen or X-rays in
order to ascertain the nature Of his in
Jurles, was properly refused because the
application was not seasonably made and
also because it did not sufficiently appear
that the person by whom it was proposed
that the photograph was to be taken had
the requisite skill and experience to
q
Whether science is yet sufficiently ad-
vanced to justify the courts in taking
Judicial notice, as an established fact, that
exposure to X-rays is not injurious to
the subject. Quere? Order reversed.
Mitchell, J.
Other decisions Of yesterday were:
State Of Minnesota, ex rel. John Zaske,
relator, appellant, VS.. August L. Mat
ter, as sheriff OF Brown county, Mimi,
respondent.
Syllabus-The rule applied that where a
party is held in custody under the final
judgment of court of competent jurfs-
diction only jurisdictional defects which
render the judgment absolutely void can
be inquired into on habeas corpus Writ
discharged and relator remanded.
j. E. Greenman, appellant VS.. o. c.. Mel
bye, defendant, First National Bank of
st. Paul, garnishee, Thore Alme, inter-
VenOr, respondent.
Syllabus-Appeal dismissed because the
proper persons were not made parties to
the appeal. Appeal dismissed.
The Mile Laos Lumber Company, ap-
pellant, vs. Charles Keith ct al, defend
ants, Charles Keith ct al, respondents.
Oroer a1nrmed. Collins, J.
Charles Butts ct al, defendants, Charles
Butts ct al, appellants. Order affirmed
Mitchell J.
Mccormick Harvesting Machine Com
pany, appellant, VS.. John H BaIfanv, re-
spondent Order affirmed. Collins, ].