New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-10-25
M. ID. Whitman, on Stand
Against Dentist Who Sues,
Calls $500 Charge Excessive.
EXPERTS WIDELY DISAGREE
One Says $500 Is Fair, Another
500, and a Third $40 to 500
-Jury's Decision To Be
Known Monday.

The Jury sitting in the case brought oy
DR.. Norris I. Schamberg. OF No. ll6 West
seth street against Malcolm d. Whitman
the former tennis champion. TO collect
500 for an operation on the gum, rendered
a sealed verdict last night after debating
for more than two hours The partles
will not learn the result OF their litiga-
ton until court convenes at 10 o'clock a.
m. Monday.
The exclamation took the stand HIM
self yesterday, testifying TO the erect
that the charge for services totalling ap-
proximately four hours was extortlonate
In spite OF the objections of the opposing
counsel, Ira L. Bamberger, he managed
to put in several drives" in his oldtime
form.
Under the questioning of his own law
yer, Allan r. Campbell, he stated that
his own physicians, Or. Walter b. James
and DR.. Albert st!llman. had repeatedly
advised him to have the teeth at whose
roots the trouble lay extracted. but DR..
Schamberg was so cock sure OF the
success of the proposed operation that he
finally consented to have 1t done. When
the bill came, Mr.. Whitman said. 1t was
so much beyond what he dreamed of that
he went TO see the dentist and told him
that he had practically the same thing
done I'm 1895 for s75.
Mr.. Bamberger objected TO the intro
duction Of the price in the testimony. con-
tending that there was no proof that the
operations were anything alike. Judge La
F'etra finally allowed il to stand. but in
structed the jury that its only value was
in proving that Mr.. Whitman had OBJ
jected TO the amount of the bill.
When Mr. Bamberger took the witness
his first question was whether he was
not lawyer. Mr. Whitman replied that
he had once practised law.
Then" demanded Mr.. Bamberger,
why, in your answer TO this suit, did you
deny the value Of Dr. Schamberg's SER
vices to be any sum whatsoever when on
the stand you swore that you offered him
a check for s35o?'"
II developed that the answer in the suit
was drawn up by Mr.. Campbell and that
Mr. Whitman did not swear to II because
he was in California at the time.
MT. BdrnDergeT asked the "ltIleSs II ne
had not written TO DR.. Schamberg on Bar
Association paper. Mr. Whitman asked
10 see the letter. When it was shown TO
him he replied: mo: this letter is TO
you. Would you like me TO read it,
did ask you to-" inquired Mr.. Bam-
berger The letter remained unread.
The plaintiff put on the stand DR.. Rich
ard Blum, a Fifth avenue dentist. who
testified that the operation. as performed
by a specialist, was worth 500 DR.. John
A. Bodine, OF No. l5l West 72d street. pro-
fessor OF surgery In a New York medical
school. maintained that regular surgeon
would perform the same operation for
500 and charge s. n visit while the wound
was being dressed Mr.. Whitman made
thirteen visits 10 DR.. Schamberg.
Or. J. Rice Gibbs. jr.. a dentist, testified
that he had performed the same opera
ton probably twenty times In the last ten
years and had charged from $40 10 $50.
He admitted that specialist in oral
surgery would charge more.