Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1903-11-13
IS INDICATED
Courts Ruling On Motion to In
struct Verdict For Defend
ant In Pelleerini Case
SURGEONS DID NOT coNsplRE
Judge Burnham Says He Does Not Be-
lieve Such to Have Been the Case, as
Plaintiffs Counsel claimed-Thinks
Mr.. and Mrs. Pelleerini Should
Bless Doctor for Saving Her Life.


, t,a.roon
siie' Sputt ID
when Judge Burnham sustained
motion of the defense. to instruct
verdict for the defendant. on the
-, ~ ,,,,i,tiff had not in
,
ereaueea suhleisit eNis''''Ss -
that there was any ground Tor aeuoh'
The case was brought against DR.. +.
r,,,,, ~ ,h,s ,i,v one of the
~,
iiiost pfoliii'ei's s"'
Mrs. Ermerelda Pellegrini, VINO soush'
damages in the sum of $4,000. be-
,,,a, Tha nnerotfon.
.,,aro+orv ineision.
"'''sn "as -
made for the purpose OF lHNestisa.i,
the character oil an apaoniihai eiouoie'
resulted in the finding that the woman
Was pregnant. but was sutleflhs from
snbereular PeflSoilius, anu iio'i
NOR, which was feared by the PAIN
tiff
The court says that he does not ne
lieFe there was conspiracy on the pars
of the physicians and surgeons VINO
testified for the defense. to protect the
defendant, and concludes his remarks
by stating that he thinks the PLAIN
tiff and her husband should rise up ana
bless the defendant FOR Saving Tue
plaintiffs life.
Judge Burnhan's ruling on 1ie mo
ton, in full, is as follows:
Il appreciate the remark that couiieS'
starts out with. that one OF the ques-
tons here Is whether or not nunner
of physicians and surgeons can peno
themselves together and swear 10 d
state of facts by standing together'
that shall prevent case from solhs
to the jury. That is what the cout.
must find here, In order to submit TINS
question to the jury, that these Physi-
clans and surgeons have banded them-
selves together in sort OF cohsplr-
acy to come In here and TESTIFY 10
state of facts they knew did not ana
does not exist, in order to protect TINS
defendant.
Il have always supposed and beiiev-
ed that physicians in their professional
relations and business were honorable
and respectable in every community l
have always thought that people had
employ them and do not believe that
can assume that these physicians nave
banded themselves together in con-
spiracy to stand together ana project
this defendant in this case, anu sweat
TO facts that did not exist.
Now. If do not assume TINS. lei US
see what the facts are In the case. II
Is question of fact; there IS no oisss
puted question of law in TINS case.
Here is woman who is affiicted IN
some manner; she goes to doctor VINO
examines her and treats her 'of soilie
time 1t reaches a point where ne is IN
doubt as to what her real troupie ~,
he makes a number OF exaininat lions
and comes to the conclusion that tnere
are several things that may be the
trouble with her, he is not aoie 10 ue-
termine what the trounle IS anu ne
suggests and. on his suggestion, the
defendant is called in; he makes an
examinations; they confer together ar
ter this examination is made; they
reach a conclusion as the testimony
shows here, because DIR. Harris was
permitted to, and did testify. that they
agreed that this fluid in the stomach
peritonitis: they were not certain, II
might be something else; this growth
in the abdomen might be a tumor or IL
might be pregnancy they made
thorough examination, using all the
tests that are known to determine
whether or not 1t is pregnancy: neither
OF them can find any evidence of preg-
nancy, perhaps, except one. that is an
enlargement of the abdominal cavity;
other tests would indicate and point to-.
wards pregnancy, but such are over
come by other tests
.Now let us suppose, and here Is the
critical question in the case. so far as
the plaintiffs case is concerned, let US
sunnose that the doctor tells the plain
tiff's husband, as he claims, that his
wife has twenty pound tumor and 1t
Ia necessary to have an operation per-
formed would any good physician
saw that it was not true, If 1t was
twentv Mound tumor, that an operation
would he necessary? Suppose he made
mistake most glaring blunder, we
,,ioh+ .oy II 10 necessary an operation
hA nerforned IL it was a twenty pound
tnmor. The defendant of course, de-
MES that he made any such statement,
hr, for the purpose OF this motion we
n,nst assume he did as plaintiff claims
r. ;s uncertain what Is the trouble; he
nerforms this operation and finds he
was mistaken. He had misled the
plaintiffs husband and the plaintiff.
He was operating for a twenty-pound