Devils Lake weekly world. (Devils Lake, N.D.) 1911-1914, 1913-06-06
E. T. CUTHBERT OF THIS CITY
PERFORMED IMPORTANT
PART IN TRIAL.

One of the largest verdicts ever
returned by jury was affirmed by the
supreme court in case of Anna Bor-
cen VS.. George McWilliams, the plain
tiff, a plain country girl from Norway
but short time, being allowed judg
ment of $4,000 against one of the
wealthy residents of Towner county.
Attorney Cuthbert, of this city, who
together with L. Fl. Sennett, the we'll
known Cando attorney, appeared for
strongest arguments before the jury
that has ever been reard and their
success in the case has been recognized
generally over the state, and especial
ly so since they were opposed in the
supreme court by such we'll known at
torneys as P, j. McClory, of this city,
and Bangs, Cooley & Hamilton, of
Grand Forks. The opinion rendered
by the supreme court follows:
Anna Booren, plaintiff, and respond
ent VS.. George E. McWilliams, defend
ant and appellant.
Q) Evidence examined, and held
that the witness DR.. Roberts was dis
qualified under section 1904, R. c.
1905 from testifying to conversations
had with plaintiff, and that plaintiff
had not waived the privileged nature
of such communication. The trial
court should exercise its discretion IN
each case where the question of
privilege rises, and this indiscretion
will not be disturbed except for
abuse.
(2) The trial court in ruling upon
an objection to the introduction of the
above evidence used language quoted
in the opinion which would discredit
the testimony Of the doctor if any had
been. given by him. However, as the
doctor gave no evidence it is held
that no prejudice to the defendant re-
suited. Besides, the defendant did not
request that the jury be excluded dur
ing the argument upon this legal
proposition.
(3) The witness Blount upon cross
examination failed to answer some of
the questions in direct manner and
he was chastised by the court in the
presence of the jury: but the language
used was provoked by the conduct of
the witness and was without prejudice
to the defendant.
a, S, g. Certain instructions re-
quested of the trial court examined,
and held, that their refusal was not
recovered in other portions of the
charge.
7) Certain instructions given by
the trial court examined, and held. to
be without prejudice to the defend
ant. --"
(S) Plaintiff upon cross-examination
was asked whether she had received
visits from certain men other than the
defendant at different times; one time
being about four months before the
child was born, and another at time
after the child was born. Held that
while defendant had right to full
cross examination in any matter that
might relate to the paternity Of the
child, yet here was no prejudice in
excluding questions enumerated, the
question of crossexamination being
largely discretionary with the trial
court.
10y Certain questions were asked
the plaintiff upon cross.examination
and excluded by the TT ial court. Held
that the questions were irrelevant TO,
reasons stated in the opinion.
(l0) The mother Of four children is
competent to say that the last child
born to her had the appearance OF
being an eight months child.
( 1l) Certain questions asked up
on cross-examination of the witness
Blount were probably immaterial, but
their answer in no manner prejudiced
the defendant.
(12) One of the farm hands was
asked whether he had noticed any