Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-10-08
Follow
the
Flag
The Wabash Railroad
Company

dicitis was, he replied that the removal
of tho appendix was the treatment. In
acute cases the earlier it is removed the
better.
He said that operations for the dis
ease began to be performed in 1885. Pre-
vious to that time he said surgery was
not as far advanced as now and that
operations upon the abdominal cavity were
attended with greater danger.
A hypothetical question, tending TO
show the condition of Mrs. Cosgriff pre-
Vous to the operation, was asked and
the witness said that If such conditions
existed in an examination made by him
he should consider the patient had APP
pendicitis and would recommend an oper-
alton.
DR.. +. II. McTaggert of Montreal to
whom was taken an appendix, claimed to
he the one taken from Mrs. Cosgrif by
DR.. McSweeney, for examination, was
the principal witness Tuesday in the
alleged malpractice case of c. Nj. and
Margare NJ. CoSgriff VS. DR.. =. T.. Nc
Sweeney. Dr. McTaggert was called by
the plaintiff as an expert witness. The
crowd was at the court room Tuesday
rs it has been every day since the open
ing Of the trial and a new feature in the
afternoon was the presence of babies.
one youngster evidently did not like the
ceremony, for he lifted his voice in a
An appendix. which had been preserved
in alcohol, was shown to Dr. McTaggert
and he said 1t WAS the one presented to
him IN Montreal by MIR. Cosgrff and At
torney Billiard for examination He was
then asked to give a description of an
appendix and he did so at some length.
Attorney Ballard objected to having the
appendix injected into the case until the
expert witnesses on his side had an OPP
portunlty to examine it. He said they
wished to take it 70 the laboratory and
make a detailed examination similar to
the one made by DR.. McTaggert. This
they were not allowed to do at that time
but were given permission to examine
1t at the court house. which they did. The
experts in the case in court were DR.. +.
T.. Clark DR.. NJ j. Wiltse and DR.. B. II.
Stone. After making a detailed descrip-
ton of the examination of the appendix,
Dr. McTaggert said that the organ sub
mitted to him was not, IN his opinion,
diseased
Upon the conclusion of the testimony
given by DR.. McTaggert, Miss Bessie
Cosgrin was called and questioned in re-
latiou to the remarks made by Or. Nc
Sweeney when he talked with Mrs. Cos
gritt before the operation. Her testimony
was brief and Corroborated that given by
Mrs. Cosgrin, in part.
Dr. W. Is. Lund was the last witness
Of the afternoon. He said that he had
treated Mrs Cosgrlm in a casual way;
that after she had been operated upon
at the Fanny Allen hospital he had been
called to treat her and found her pros
tratc, weak and suffering pain. He said
he examined her abdomen and found it
swollen. the pain being below the scar
caused by the operation. He did not at
that time diagnose the case but was of
the opinion that she had come home
from the hospital weakened ny the
operation. Later on the last day
of January, the witness said he
and DR. lIawley made another cNamina
ton of Mrs, Cosgriff. He said that be-
tween January 10 and the time the next
examination was made Mrs Cosgritt' s
condition did not improve. The witness
said he treated the patient and that she
responded He thought she was sicl,
about eight weeks.
Upon the examination made by DR.
| Hawley and himself, the witness said 1t
was found that Mrs. Cosgrif was suffer
| ing from diseases in no way connected
| with appendicitis and that he attributes
| her present condition to those diseases.
Attorney Bulard mentioned symptoms
! claimed to have been present in Mrs
Cossrlffs case previous to the operation
and mentioned the extent of an eXamina
| ton, which was made in Mrs Cossrff
operate for appendicitis without makne
! further examinations and the Witnes:
replied that it was his custom to make
further examinations than the one men
| toned.