Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1905-10-02

the care of the doctor before the leg
was well. DR.. Wright has been a sur
geon for thirty three years or more.
and during this long experience has
probably set more broken bones than
any other physician in this county,
and it is absurdity at this late day to
question his skill as surgeon. If he
lacks this skill it should have been
questioned years and years ago A
surgeon has many difficulties to over
come and one of the worst. besides
setting the bone, is having the patient
disobey his instructions while the frac-
ture is healing. More than one limb
has been deformed after being prom
erly set by the patient using it or tax
ing of the splints and using il before
the bones were properly knit. And
the physician gets the blame for if.
One of the physicians on the case
stated the facts when he said in sub-
stanee:-Take stick and break it,
place the two parts on a table or
smooth surface, and you can match
them together without trouble. Place
the two parts in bag of meal, how
ever, and the matching of them be-
comes a difficult feat. On what
points the jury rendered their verdict
against the doctor would be difficnlt
to state; but it was certainly a sur
prise to those who listened to the tes-
timony from the outside.
Following the Wright case was that
of Fred E. Circuit and Charles B. Grout
VS.. OR. Moulton. This case was over
the sale of an automobile, and the
agency of automobiles by the plain
tiffs to the defendant in March. 1903.
Suit was brought by the plaintiffs to
recover pay for the same. The de-
PENDANT went to Boston that spring
and purchased an automobile of plain
tiffs with the right of the agency for
the northern counties of Vermont
With this agency the defendant claims
he was to receive all the commission |
on the sale of automobiles by himself |
or the company in those counties
covered by the agency. Defendant
also claimed that the plaintiffs were |
to send agents to demonstrate the
of the machine to his salts
faction. Defendant also claimed that |
certain attachments were to be fDr-
nlshed with the machine which were
not sent, and after considerable de-
bate through correspondence with the |
plaintiffs they finally agreed to fur
nish them under condition that the
defendant pay for the machine as |
soon as the attachments were sent.
The defendant also claimed that the
plaintiffs had sold and appointed
agents In the territory GOV 3red by the
agency, and the evidence tended to
show that at least one had been sold
at St.Johnsbury. The defense claimed
that the plaintiffs failed to fulfill tie
contract with defendant and to dem
onstrate the working of the machine.
and had also sold another machine in
his territory. The case was ably
fought on both sides for several DAYS.
and finally went to the jury Thursday
morning. After ten hours they finally
rendered verdict for the defendant
to recover costs. The question now
will naturally arise, "Who owns the
Redmond and Cook were
for the defendant and Willard Miles
and a lawyer from Boston for the
plaintiffs.
the case now on trial is that of EFF
Wilder vs.. E. M. Bartlett, over the
ownership and scaling
Of lumber Express and Standard.