Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-22
SUPREME court
Verdict of $1,000 Rendered for
Plaintiff in Malpractice the
Case of Merrill VS.. OdiOrne

Wednesdays session of the supreme
court was marked by the completion
of the Merrill VS.. Odiorne case when
the jury returned verdict in favor
of the plaintiff for the sum of $1,000,
and by the opening of the case in
which the will of the late Alfred
Thompson of Portland is contested.
In the case of Merrill VS.. Odiorne the
rebuttal in behalf of the plaintiff
which Mr. Heselton had opened the
proceeding afternoon was Immediate
~ continued by his calling Mr.. Mer-
rill to the stand. The witness tcsti-
mony was brief and was IN direct re-
futatf6n OF sorne of the Statements of
the other witnesses This concluded
all the evidence which was submitted
in the course of the trial.
In opening his plea to the jury, in
behalf of the defendant, NJ. Little
field began with the usual Formally
and continued by saying that upon
them rested the duty of considering
the facts submitted in evidence. He
spoke of the frailty of human nature
which seemed disposed 20 place the
blame of ones misfortune upon others
and to accept all credit for whatever
good fortune one might possess. The
attention Of the jury was called to
note that the burden of proof rested
upon the plaintiff throughout the
case. The issues which The case in
volved and which were to be proved
by the plaintiff were considered by
the speaker as being either: That DIR.
Odiorne was not a qualified surgeon
h. Of ell on
having that degree 70 skill he had
failed to use it. The plaintiff, 'lr. Lit
tlefield stated, must slow that no
negligence on his own part had con-
tributed to the result. Both the doc
tor and the patient must have Gone
what was incumbent upon each and
botn CT them, the counsel asserted.
Further argument by the counsel
for the defendant was largely confin-
ed TO a conception of the facts, and
was in substance: That no physician
guarantees cure and can only be
expected to display ordinary skill. The
physician and patient must Cooperate
and the former is not responsible for
the negligence of those in charge of
the patient during his absence. Cen
tiemen," he continued, this case is to
vitality interested in the result of the
be decided by sou upon the broad
general facts
Some time was occupied with a re-
futation of many of the points raised
by the opposing counsel, with the
conclusion that the speaker would not
waste any moro time on these sun
dry little things" with which his OPP
ponent Twill enter tain you here. with
very pretty little arsument-enter-
tain you for an hour"
Attention was called to the fact that
all witnesses for the plaintiff were all
vitality interested in the result tot the
case, while the witnesses for the de-
PENDANT were his neighbors.
The fact was set forth that tie de-
PENDANT did possess ordinary skill
which was not contested and, as to
whether he used this skill or not, his
his reputation and success in his
chosen profession were at stake.
"A discussion of the evidence follow
ed and the inference was drawn that
the present condition of Mr.. Merrilrs
leg was not the result Of the treatment
which DIR. Odiorne had administered,
and other causes for the legs pres
ent condition were set forth. Concern
ing the use of the Bucks extension in
the treatment of the leg the counsel
contended that the advisability of Its
use had been shown, and that the
question was not as to why some other
method had not been employed but
as to whether DR.. Odiorne had used
ordinary skill Some time was spent
in considerat ton of the testimony re-
garding the failure of the patient and
those who cared for him to keep the
weights attached to the extension in
place.
Further argument Of the counsel
dealt in greater detail concerning the
negligence of the patient,
the negligence on his part which per-
mitted the inference that the result
was his own fault. The disposition of
the patient to disobey the doctors In
structions was illustrated by the ex-
ample, which was brought out in tes-
tinony, of his eating hearty break
fast alter he had been told not to on
account of the administration of eth
er. Testimony showed that the doctor