The weekly register. [volume] (Point Pleasant, Va. [W. Va.]) 1862-1909, 1900-03-14
Fec ofan Expert witness.

ing and false impression scattered
abroad by dispatches to newspapers
that garbled the facts in reference
to the fee received by DIR. Guthrie,
of this place, in the unsavory case
of DR.. Hissom against bis father
for damages for false imprison-
ment, lately tried in Wheeling. To
show that DR.. Guthrie has been
misrepresented in the dispatches,
to the daily press, and in order that
his friends at home may know the
true state of the facts, we clip the
following from the Wheeling In
telligenoer of March 8th, in it's
comments on the argument made
in the case by Hon. John A. How
ard:
Much had been made of the fee
exacted for expert testimony in
this case by DR.. l.. V. Guthrie,
superintendent of the Spencer asy-
lum, and in speaking along this
line, Mr.. Howard said:
"The superintendent of our State
Hospital for the Insane, at Spencer,
is viciousIy assailed. There is
nothing wrong in an expert receiv-
ing proper fee. There is no i'm
propriety in his being paid by both
sides. It is not unusual for both
sides of the case to employ the
same expert The expert may be
partisan, usually is, but he is ex-
pected to tell the truth without re-
gard to which side of the case it
helps or hurts. AS DIR. Guthrie
said in his testimony, 81 could not
tell anything in this case that would
help the plaintiffs side of the case,
because the facts are against him.
"The plaintiff had paid him $50,
he told them what his testimony
would be, it was against them.
They did not want it, They could
have told him so and asked him to
return their money, but, on the con-
trary, they told him to hold himself
in readiness to come at their call,
certainly not intending to call him.
Had he obeyed, his testimony would
have been suppressed. We wanted
him as an expert, he asked $500 as
fec, we paid it, he came, and told
the truth. Being anxious as he
was to be we'll prepared, he looked
up the authorities bearing on this
case and prepared questions direct
ed toward them, there was no i'm
propriety in his conduct, Did he
not tell the truth, and the whole
truth? Who contradicts the truth
of his testimony? There are other
experts. If he had not told the
truth, the plaintiff could have called
experts to testify and to contradict
him. The inference from the GROSS
examination is that DR.. Guthrie
did not tell the truth. That he was
ready to give tho testimony that
either side wanted, if paid for it.
This is unjust to this reputable
physician, to this officer of public
institution. What lie said was,
and quote from the stenographer's
report, i came for either side that
wanted me- but he further said that
he had told the plaintiff what his
testimony would be and they knew
it was against them.
"Had he told S. G.. Smith that
he thought DR.. Hissom was a sane
man, the plaintiff would have called
him and he would have been held
up to this jury as man most
worthy of credit. The whole
trouble is, that DR.. Guthrie could
not truthfully say that DR.. Hissom
was sane man; that to tell the
truth he was compelled to say that
he was monomaniac and moral
degenerate, and, therefore, could
not give any testimony that would
have helped the plaintiff. He told
them so and they directed him to
go back to Spencer and await their
call, thereby hoping to suppress his
testimony; we learned of DIR. Guth-
rie's views, knowing that he re-
garded the plaintiff as an insane
man, paid him a proper expert fee
and brought him here to testify.
And now the plaintiffs counsel
make an unjust attack upon him
and try to make it appear that be
is not worthy of credit.
CDR. Guthrie showed himself up
on the witness stand, to be an un-
usually talented expert on insanity,
and it is not fair to the defense
here, nor is it fair to him, to make
this effort to put him in false po-