The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-03-30
Wingfield False Teeth Case Has
Many Counterparts.
Doctors Often Misled by Use OF
X-ray Machine.
DIR. YATES is EXCUSED
Subjected to a Severe Cross
Examination.
Dispositions of DIR. III. H. Keith
OF Topeka Read.

room all day yesterday at the district
court was filled with men and women
who We're interested in the Wing
field false teeth damage case. DIR.
Yates, who testified as an expert in
the uses of an X-ray machine, was
called to the stand and the cross ex-
animation directed by Mr.. Harkless,
attorney for the defense, started in on
an examination as to the qualifications
OF submitting the testimony of DR..
ates as an expert with the uses of
that machine. He was asked if he had
read and was familiar with the book
published by one Allen in regard to
the uses of the X-ray machine, and
he stated that he was not He was
asked If he was acquainted or had
heard of DIR. Grille, physician of Gin
clnnati- He stated that he had heard
or Dr. Grille and knew him to be an
eminent physician He was then read
deposition of DIR. Grille in the Allen
book of a case where party had sup
posed to have swallowed a set of false
teeth. An examination was made with
an A-ray machine and the radograph
showed a shadow in the throat that
was taken for the teeth. An operation
was performed ON the neck, the teeth
were not found and the stomach of
the patient was opened and no teeth
found. The patient died and the teeth
scure place in the persons sleeping
room.
A deposition of DIR. Knoig was then
read from medical book. In this
case, girl of 22 years of age,
was supposed to have swallowed a set
or upper false teeth. An examination
was made by the aid of an X-ray ma
chine, shadow was cast and an op-
Grafton was performed to extract the
teeth. An incision was made in the
neck and later in the stomach No
teeth were found and the young lady
recovered. The teeth were afterwards
found in her bedroom.
Another case was cited where a DR.
DeCaulcy was called to examine a pa
tient who was supposed to have swal-
lowed her false. teeth. An examination
was made with an X-ray machine and
the teeth were supposed to be located
An operation was performed, no teeth
were found and the patient recovered.
DIR. Yates was asked if he had read
and was familiar with these reports
and he stated that he was not. He
said he doubted the report that the
shadow of the false teeth could not
have been seen but supposed the re-
ports were correct. He stated that the
machine might cast a shadow some
time that would mislead physicians
but he did not think that the late
manner of taking skyographs would
deceive a physician according to ex-
periments that he had taken.
He was asked whether or not a phy-
sieian trained in the use of the ma
chine would not be more able to pro-
duce the results with the finishing of
the pictures than one who handled the
pictures and not the machine and he
stated that he thought the physician
who regulated the machine would be
more expert with it's use
A report of a Mr.. Beck was read and
showed the uses of the skyograph.
Dispositions were then read from
Prof. Juettner. professor in the Cincin-
natl surgical schools in regards to the
shadows that sometimes were cast
from the machine in the taking of X
ray pictures, especially the taking of a
pair of false teeth in the throat and
the manner in which several bones in
the throat had been taken and cast a
shadow and caused the physicians to
be mistaken in their diagnosis.
The attorneys for the plaintiff then
asked DR.. Yates If he had made re-
cent experiments with the uses of the
X-ray machine and if he had placed
OBJECTS similar to a pair of false teeth
near the throat and taken their skye
graphs. This question was objected to
| by the attorneys for the defendants
! and sustained by the court.
He was then asked by the attorneys
| for the plaintiffs if a set of false teeth
! located in the aesophagus of a person
near the heart could be located with
i
question was objected to by the at
| torneys for the defendants, and Mr.
| Harkless stated that this was many oil
| the very important questions that
might soon arise from the many ques-
| tions that would be asked in regard to
experiments that had been carried or
| by the witnesses since they become in
| terested in the case and that he would
| like to have the court dismiss the jury
| for short time until they could argue
| :, int nd find ~
| allowed to be submitted to the jury
The court asked if they wished to dc
| that at once or pass until some other
| time and take the matter up latter
| The court also wished to look up sew
eral important questions and the mat
| ter was passed over until latter.
| The question was then asked what
! is the hyoid bone.
He stated that this was the bone
| that supported the tongue He was
| this bone would cast a shadow in ar
| X-ray picture that could be mistaken
| for a set of false teeth. The answer
was objected to and sustained by the
| court
DR.. Yates was then asked to tell the
| jury what acute nephritis was He
answered it was Inflammation of the
| kidneys.
| DR.. Keith's Deposition Read.
| At Ais, after being on the witnes:
! stand for two days. Dr. Yates was ax.
| cused and the deposition of DR. H H
| Keith. coroner of Shawnee county
! was offered in evidence. Mr. Hark.
ness, attorney for the defense, object.
ed to offering the deposition of DR.
Keith as that gentleman would be hers
! Tuesday morning to take the stand TO,
! a direct cross examination. The OBJ.
/ lection was overruled and Mr.. Hurd
! attorney for the plaintiffs, began t.
| read the deposition
! DR.. Keith's deposition had been TAX