Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1903-10-15

GTeSS tOWdTu us COlIlplttioll was
The case still continues to attract an
unusual amount of attention, although
the crowds in attendance are not as large
ns they were at the opening. The wit
nesses examined Monday were DR..
Lyman Allen DR.. II. Edwin Lewis and
DR.. ID. G. Hawley Dr. Hawley's testi-
'nony was not completed.
DIR. ALIENS RECORD BOOK.
DR.. Allen was the first witness and the
examination was begun by the introduce
ton of a book in which he kept a record
of his cases. He said that he kept a rec
ord of his cases but was not bound to do
SO. doing so only for his own information.
The book was not offered as whole be-
cause it contained private records, hence
the only portion offered was that relative
TO the examination DR.. Allen made of
Mrs. Cosgriff before she was discharged
from the hospital. The counsel for the
plaintiff objected to the record because
1t contained things which DR.. Allen could
not have known about personally and
said that if it was offered at all should
be put in in its entirety. The record was
Withdrawn by Attorney Ballard for the
time being.
DIR. LEWIS AGAIN EXAMINED.
DR.. II. Edwin Lewis was recalled after
DR.. Allen was excused
Was the appendix taken from Mrs.
Cosgriff so diseased as to make its re-
moval imperative?' was asked by At
torney Ballard.
1T was" replied DR.. Lewis
If the appendix had been infamed but
had not begun to ulcerate the witness
said he should have considered it dis
eaSed.
Hypothetical questions stating Mrs. Cos
grins condition previous to the operation
were asked and the witness said that I'M
der such symptoms he should have de-
termined the disease was appendicitis and
should have advised an immediate opera
ton.
The cross examination was conducted by
Attorney Billiard and related largely to
the time at which the witness visited
the operating room when Mrs. Cosgriff
was operated upon. The witness was ask
ed if he had a right to enter the operat-
ing room without being called in con
sultation. He replied that he had.
DR. Lewis said that when he entered
the operating room the inctsion had been
made and DIR. insolvency had his fingers
in the wound in an effort to find the APP
pendix. He said the only remark he
made was to ask DR.. insolvency what
the operation was.
The witness said there was no redness
on the outside of the appendix when he
examined IL ana tnal aSlue from tHe
adhesions there were no other external
indications of disease. He qualified his
statement by saying that the ADMISSIONS
were sufficient indications of disease.
On the interior of the appendix there
was a diseased spot and the walls were
thickened. thus indicating that the drain
age was interfered with.
DIR. HAWLEYS TESTIMONY.
DR.. Hawley was the last witness of the
afternoon and his examination was very
brief. He testified TO his exper-
fence in surgery at the Fanny Allen
and Mary Fletcher hospitals and in pri-
Vate practice, saying that he had per-
formed several hundred operations for
appendicitis. He said that on January 81
last he was called by DR.. Lund in con-
sultation on Mrs Cosgrifr's case. The wit
ness said that both he and DIR. Lund
made an external and internal examina-
ton of Mrs Cosgriff, and that his was
very thorough. He described the opera
ton and just before leaving the stand
fatty contradicted testimony given by DR..
Lund as to the condition of certain or
gans of the patient.
The evidence of the defendant in the
Coseriff McSweehey alleged malprac tice
case is drawing to n close and the argu-
ments Of the attorneys will be reached
Wltnln Il SNORT Ufnt. those WHO ttSll-
fed Tuesday were DR.. d. c. Hawley,
M, D. Mcmahon, DIR. J. b. Wheeler, DR..
j. II. Dodds and J. II. Andrews.
TUESDAYS SESSION.
DR., Hawley's examination was con-
tinued yesterday morning and the first
questions were relative to the internal
examination he made of Mrs. Cosgrin af-
ter her return from the hospital the
evidence of the witness on that line con-
tanning some fiat contradictions of the
evidence given by DR., w. b. Lund, who
made similar examination at the same
time.
The witness said that if Mrs. Cosgriff
was suffering from the same troubles on
December Is that she had on January
81 and had appendicitis in addition there
would be no improperly in making an
operation for the latter disease; or that
the existence of such female troubles
would make no difference in regard to
the operation.
Dr. Hawley said he had no opinion as
TO whether Mrs. Cosgrm had appendicitis
on December IS He said the condition re-
vealed by his examination Of her on
January 81 might have come on in two
hours or two years, or at any length Of