Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-12-06

not be contradicted by argument" He
| explained that any hallucination which
a patient chung to in the face of sat-
/ isfactory proof to the contrary, was
| evidence of delusional insanity. Vic
Tins of this form of insanity are clear
| upon every other point except their
particular delusion. They might mask
| their delusion so that it would escape
observation. 1t is not true that if a
| conversation is started upon the sub
ject matter of a patients delusion, the
patient will Immediately betray his de-
| fusion.
when you visited DR.. Hissom was
/ your suspicion aroused?"
eyes"
Then you were both suspicious?"
81 cannot answer for him."
The witness was cross examined as
to what took place in his interview
with DR.. Hissom, and he admitted that
the interview alone would not have led
him to form an opinion as to the doc
tors. sanity or insanity. He got a
| history of the case from the Hissom' S
and based his opinion upon that.
IF the history of the case you re-
oeived from the elder Hisson were dis
proven, what would be the effect upon
your opinion of Dr. Hissom?"
1T would change it very much"
Wouldn't it change it entirely?"
yes, it would"
you were very much interested in
this matter, were you not?"
Il was not particularly interested in
sending DR.. Hissom to the asylum.
thought if he were dangerous to the
peace of the community, he ought to
CO."
Didn't ]. r. Hissom pay you for
making that personal examination,
and for writing to DR.. Guthrie, and
for everything else you did in the
case?"
Yes, I made a charge for every
thing which l regarded as in tie line
of professional service"
Were you paid for making an aft
davit?"
Il was not"
Mr.. Schuck read to the jury two let
tiers which were written by DR.. Myers
to DR.. Guthrie. They stated the his
tory of the case substantially as re-
lated by witness on direct examina-
ton.
What did you receive for writing
those two letters?"
Nothing particularly Mr.. Hissom
paid me $50 for services rendered up
to a certain date, without any specific
charges"
Witness was asked about his books,
and said he made no itemized bill
against Mr. Hissom. He referred to
the publication in the News about
DR.. Hissoms arrest as an effort to
prejudice the public against the elder
Hissom.
is it not true, in a broad sense,
that all men are more or less in
sane?"
Il think the wider line between
sanity and insanity is sometimes very
closely drawn, but there is certainly a
dividing line"
Ernest Taught was the next witness
called He worked in Sistersville and
had heard of the arrest of DR.. Hissom
on a lunacy charge. He remembered
seeing DR.. Hissom some time before in
the Manhattan, where witness was
working. He saw j. r. Hissom on the
same day in the Hosford hotel. He
talked with both father and son. The
son did not mention his father.
What did you say to ]. R. Hissom
about his son being in town."
Il told him l saw Sam up street."
10 you hHON WncIc ooh "ChI.
He started across the river"
do you know what the father did,"
HE put on his coat and went down
street"
What did you say about his sons
condition."
Il told him thought the doctor was
| drinking"
The cross examination was severe.
Mr.. Schuck Intercepted the witness,
with a view to attacking his CREDIBLE
| ity. He asked about his connection
with "speak-easies" and gambling
houses. There was objection, and the
counsel for the plaintiff assured the
court that the questions were asked
| in good faith, and based upon informa-
ton which had been given. The ques-
| tons were allowed, but witness de-
clined to answer some of them, and
was excused from doing so.
Thomas Connolly, ferryman above
Sistersville was next called. He was
running a ferry in February, 1885, He
| knew both parties to the suit He
| first met DR.. S. X. Hissom previous
1 -