The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-12-28
Dismissed as to Dr.. Bailey, With
Costs to Plaintiff.
COURT Rssukls ATTORNEYS.
Neusuit Denied ~ to DIR. Wother-
spoon and Dr. Calhoun, and In
Production of Testimony for the
Defendants Commenced-Judge
Reid Comments ON Conduct of
the plaintiffs Side OF the Case.

The case of Mrs Mary A. Teitz against
DR.. John Wotherspoon, DIR. 9. V. Cal
houn and DIR. A. b. Bailey, for malprac-
tfce alleged to have occurred In the treat
ment OF her deceased husband, developed
some interesting features yesterday. Dur
ing the morning the court dismissed the
action as against DR.. Bailey, assessing
his costs to the plaintiff. The court also.
during the day. administered some sharp
rebukes to the attorney for the pialntin.
As fully told In yesterdays Post-1ntel-
Hgenccr. the action was commenced oy
Mrs. Testz to recover $4,000 for the death
OF her husband. which she claims was
caused by improper surgical treatment
and medical care. Yesterday was devot-
ed to argument as to the ability OF the
widow to bring such an action. 1t was
decided that she had that power. and the
introduction of testimony for the plain
tin began during the morning Mrs. Teitz
told of her husbands trouble. the opera
fions which were performed. as she UNI
derstood them, and the circumstances at
tending his DEATH sondn-law also gave
Testimony on these points. and other wit
nesses were introduced. No medical fes-
tfYnony was introduced by the pIaintin.
After the plaintiff closed the three de-
PENDANTS through their attorneys, inter
posed separate motions for nonsuits
j esc motions were argued at length.
overruIed az regards DIR. Wotherspoon
and DIR. Calhoun, but allowed as to DR..
Bailey The court directed further that
any costs incurred by DIR. Bailey In de-
fencing the action should be taxed TO the
plaintiff. and he should have Judgment
for that amount.
in commenting upon the case at this
time Judge Frank t. Reid, OF snohomish
county. who IL conducting the trial In
the a.sence OF Judge Jacobs. said:
~ rcr-et ve.y much that counsel TOR
the ni'insfr thought II necessary Tor the
purposes Of tais case to NIKE two such
r~ re'sy rar,ics defendant on sum
slight eIfrras az appear to exist There
IN every reason for not introducing tneir
ralnes Until II could be proven absolutely
rseeaxrfv 10 u, 49, and there Is very
little arse for bringing them IN under
existing CONDITIONS charge OF this kind
II sry rave one. ana y apr 70 resuh
repu ri. ,ay and standings OF the gentle
n,aa involved. even where as y the cGse
hire, etery one knows fr9t sucn charges
can tsve little foundation against such
II ragres very much that counsel FOR
The p,atrtiff brought these gentlemen into
this case, not only for the Injury 70 their
rrofersias.ai repiyfaticnx. hi. also for the
good rarne of the har OF this state and
court-. wf,' c'h should be extremely careful
20 avoid anything that Il apt to inJure
until such caurse Is absolutely neces-
cary
Al nnrtther time the attorney for the
rlnin..fr Desired to read some authort-
tiles 10 the court, and was told to kind
w throw those authorities In the waste
tasket and eonsult your head and your
heart
After these little passages the jury WIS
hrorpns In and testimony resumed. DIR.
Wothcrspoon, the principal defendant,
was r'r-ed m the stand. and gave q clear
account Of the circumstances leading up
to the spa operations AMI the conditions
whcsl existed at that time. From his
testimony Il was evident that the condi-
tion OF Teitx was very bad. and In fact
the dcctor expressed the opinion that Il
was not shock from the operation. but
peritonitis arising from bad physical con-
tiition. that caused death.
DR. WotherSpopn's direct examination
which II being conducted by James Ham
iiton Lewis, was not concluded last even
Ing, and wnl be resumed this morning at
$50 O'Clock. The court admpniahed the
Jurors, witnesses and counsel to he on
hand promptly at that hour In order that
the rase might proceed without delay.