Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, N.D.) 1909-1915, 1914-01-23

Set side
sBPREME COURT SAYS ToWNEs
COUNTY NAN DID NOT
AS HAVE FAR TRIAL

b Bismarck D. Jan % The sac
$50 dollar vertise.ss Tor breach OF prp.sz-
Ess given in ToRner county agains.
George & New lliams n favor u
Annie Bsoren was today set aside BIZ
the supreme court which declares
that NcKEiEliams was mot accorded Z.
fair trial 81
McWillsaEs is prominently knoNa
throughout the northern part CT the
state. The reversal sends the case
back to the district court for re-srEaE
l In part the supreme court says:
In an action for breach OF promise
OF marriage. defendant offered u
shcw by physicians a COMPENSATION
with the plaintiff, on the occasion Of
visit 10 her subsequent 70 her coz
inemsut- which conversation, If te=
titled to, would show statements e.
plaintiff IN direct conflict with her
claims IN this litigation During the
proceedings TO determine whether the
testimony Of the doctor was privileged
under the statute, the court, IN afs-
dressing counsel. said in part. .tIf 4
man can act as doctor Just as has
been testified to here. 4 he can att
as doctor and make caIl,and then
when called again, repudiate the pro
fessional part of it and become some
thing else, If he can do that n d
lease of this kind, he can go out and
separate his visits into two calls. He
can make the call professionally and
act as a detective right ssrsigsz
through. We have a good and shoae-
some statute Oh that, and If this kind
Of business can prevail, There is no.a-
ing In il and 1t is wiped out and torn
: 20 pieces" The offer Of proof Eaica
called forth this declaration was s.-
show statements made BY plaintiff.
when it was claimed the witness was
| not attending her in a professional
capacity. It is held under these facts
and all the surrounding circumscal-
ees. that this statement by the court
! was uuwarranred, and In a case where
! the evidence OF the parties as 10 the
! direct issues was practically uncorro-
5orated and In direct conflict and a
slight thing might influence the veg
!: aict, was pceiudiciaI
/ Many minor errors disclosed in ,he
7 record, all rnfavora5ie TO the defend
ant, considered in connection with the
I yacie record indicate that ne did NOT
nave fair trial.
! Sec. 1894 r. C.. 1908. prohibits j
Z physician being examined as wiz
! Cess, without the consent OF MS ia
-ieat. AS to any Information acquired
In attending the patient, which was
necessary 10 esizbie him TO prescribe
! u act for the patient Held that the
object OF This starate is TO inspire ca1-
ldeHce in the patient and encourage
! MIN to make d full disclosure 10 the
! physician OF his symptoms and con-
'iit5czl. by protecting against phys:c-
! ans making known to the curious Ii,4
/ ailments of Iae;r patients, pa.&i cuiarIy
7; %zien afflicted with diseases which
d! might bring re1reach, criticism, u.,-
: friendly comment OF disgrace upua
he patient IL known go exist
When d party 10 litigation seeks IL
exclude 1Els tesGIEsoCay, gf q phys ic+an
+. 5a that ground, EEzaS II is privileged
under the above statute ting burden
Is upon such party % bring OF sf1ow
he eTzdenGa 10 be within. the segnas
u the statute granting the privilege.
h. The question Of the privileged CHAR
acter os the testimony If for ting
court, taking into consideration all
the circumstances, and. if necessary.
the opinion CT the physician and the
belief CT the patient.
Two facts must combine 10 render
the testimony Of physician priv
:lega under the provisions of See
j .3s4 E G.. 1865. namely. he must have
i acquired the information while al
+, tending t5e patient in his professional
:. capacity, and the information mus:
Il atos have been Unnecessary to enable
him TO prescribe or set for the pa,
RI =ient. Held, under the facts OF this
. Ease. tEEs1 the testimony sought TO be-
-ieiicited from the physician was mi
], privileged, as il is clear that the ques
tons did not call for Information
,. necessary 70 enable the physician, L
Il prescribe or ACT for her. 3S
! : : 4 - !.
With the organization Of a hockey