El Paso daily herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1881-1901, 1899-11-23
THE QUESTION
OF PROFIT
Engages the Attention Of the
Court In the Ham
way Case

Court In the Han
] way Case
, DOES THE HOSPITAL PAY?
Defendants Claim Strongly That
the Unfortunate Man Died OF
Fatty Embolism
Judge Newton, of San Antonio, fin-
ished his splendid argument on behalf
morning and he was then followed by
J. L. Beall, for the railway company.
Judge Newton began speakicg yester-
day afternoon as soon as Senator Tur-
ney had completed his argument.
Captain Beall first took up the law as
applica BILE to the alleged implied con-
tract entered into between each rail
way employe and the hospital depart
ment of the corporation, He read q
decision by the supreme court of Ten
nessee having bearing on the issue
before the court and then proceeded to
argue.
The supreme court Of Tennessee
goes so far as to say that when a surgeon
Iof corporation selects anoGuer
surgeon 10 treat an employe, the sec
oud surgeon not being in control of
the chief surgeon, it is contrary to
reason ana common sense to hold the
chief surgeo responsible for mistakes
of his assistant.
81 contend,'' said Captain Beall.
"that the employees simply establish q
trust fund. Think of it! Each mau
hurt gets careful hospital tire atment,
champagne and all that for the paltry
sum of $6 per year!
| "There can be and is no obie ,tion
Tor a railway company to go in with it's
employees, employ competent surgeons
and create q hospital fund. Such q
custom exists in every educational
institution in the United States. If
you send your son to college at Austin
Or Bryan, there syou will find Just such
hospital system as is maintained by
the railway and its employees. Shall
you hold the railway company respon-
s1ble for treatment received by en-
ployes at the hands of surgeons of this
department? Is the railway company
running this department for profit?
"A law was passed in England where
by every ship that carried passengers
across the ocean was required to en-
ploy surgeon to be on board to treat
passengers who required medical or
quinine was called for and calomel
was administered causing death. Were
the ship owners held responsible? 1t
was clear case of mai practice but
the courts held that the owners could
not be made liable.
THE QUESTION OF PROFIT.
''In the case cited it was established
as fact that the hospital department
was run at profit, yet the supreme
court reversed the decision of the low
er court, finding that the company
could not be held responsible for the
conduct of the surgeons.
Judge hall:-"Captain, did |
understand you to say that the liabili-
ty OF the company would depend on
whether or not there was a surplus
each month in the hospital fund?"
Captain Beal: mo, sir; that is the
contention. but the company can not
be held liable unless the hospital de-
partment is run for the purpose of
proht. 1t makes no difference whether
there was surplus one month aud q
deficit the next; that makes no differ
ence, the purpose of the department
must be for profit
Judge Walthall cited two decisions
which varied widely in doctrine and he
SAID: "How can it be determined
whether or not the department. was
run for profit? All that is known
Is chat fifty cents is collected each
month from employees and there is no
way to determined whether or not the
intention Is to derive profit from the
transaction.
Captain Beal was intent on Carrying
bis point and read from decision of q
higher court wherein case was de-
c1ded against an employe even where
1t was proven that u profit of several
thousand dollars per month WAS derived
by the railway company
NOW on the question of agency"
continued the attorney. 1.-THE hospital
fund is maintained by the coutribu-
lions OF employees, but the
'mF any 3 covers =all the de-
1oit. The railway company
But suppose the court holds that the
'ailway corporation has engaged in the
hospital business. then Hanway would
oe an agent and DR.. Turner is also an
agent of the company. aanway and
he surgeon are follow servants and
he railway would not be responsible,
'nly the wrongdoer."
But the court disagreed with the
awyer and called bis attention to
!udge Stevens's decision. of recent
late, and said he could not take a con-
rory view of the case.
am glad that your honor agrees
With me, replied the attorney for the
orporation. "Suppose the plaintiff
lad alleged that Hanway would have
covered had the operation been per-
ormeo on the 18th. We would have
emurred to 1t and they knew it. The
argeon is more responsible than any-
ne else, but no surgeon insures life.
our honor would have sustained our
Inc speaker was momentarily inter-
apted by Waters Davis. but he con-
.nneo: Occult Influences must be