The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1900-03-08
An Experts Fee.

'The superintendentUf our State Hos
pital for the Insane, at Spencer, Is VIC
iously assailed. There Is nothing wrong
in an expert receiving a proper fee.
There Is no improperly 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 q
partisan. usually is, but he is expected
to tell the truth without regard to
which side Of the case 1t helps or hurts.
AS DR.. Guthrie said In his testimony. u
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 contrary, 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 fee, we
paid II, her came, and told the truth.
Being anxious as he was to be well pre-
pared, he looked up the authorities
bearing, on this case and prepared ques-
lions directed toward them, there was
no improperly in his conduct. Did he
not tell the truth, and the whole truth?
Who contradictS the truth Of his testi-
mony? There are other experts. il he
had not told the truth, the plaintih
could have called experts to testify and
to contradict him. The inference from
the cross examination IS that DR.. Guth-
rie did not tell the truth. That he was
ready to give the testimony that either
side wanted, II paid for 1t. This is UNI
,teII,1 fhNn
officer Of a public institution. What he
said was, and quote from the steno-
grapher's report. 4 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 II
was against them.
had he told s. G. Smith that he
thought DR.. Hlssom was sane man,
the plaintiff would have called him and
he would have been held up to this jury
as a man most worthy of credit The
whole trouble Is, that DR.. Guthrie could
not truthfully say that DR.. Htssom was
a sane man; that to tell Thu. truth he
was compelled to say that he wos
monomanlac and q moral degenerate,
and, therefore. could not give any testl-
mony that would have helped the plain.
tin. He told them so and they directed
him to 60 back 20 Spencer and await
their call, thereby hoping to suppress
his testimony; we learned Of DR.. Guth-
ries Views, knowing that he regarded
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 he
Is not worthy Of credit.
"Dr. Guthrie showed himself upon the
witness stand, TO be an unusually tall
ented expert on insanity, and It - not
falr to the defense here, nor is e fair to
him, to make this EFFORT to put him In a
false position"
Mr.. Hubbard's Argument.
The conduct Of the defense, said Mr.
Hubbard, had been cowardly. for Mrs.
Hins0m'B name was used by J. r. His
-Bom in entering the lunany charge
against DR.. Hissom, and an attempt
had been made to have the prosecuting
attorney prosecute the doctor. The de-
Tense was also untruthful and No. hub.