Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-22

The counsel continued by telling the
jury that the question of responsible
ity for the leg was in their hands. He
spoke of his neglect In dealing with
the issues of the case and inquired II
his suggestions in regard to the Wit
nesses and testimony had not been
helpful. II so, he said indicating his
client. Hes entitled to damages"
Mr. Heselton briefly spoke concern
ing Mr.. Merrilrs going to a hospital
even at this stage of the case. He re-
ferred to the testimony of the ply
sicians regarding what the results of
such thing might be, and laid par
ticular stress upon the admission of
one Of the physicians that possible
result might De the amputation of the
leg.
You've got hard question before
you on the question of damages" the
counsel told the jury. He outlined the
things for which his client might ex-
pect compensation: The strangulation
OF the ankle, the suffering, the loss of
time and for his necessity of going
through life cripple. The future as
well as the past demand compensa-
ton.
With the remark, II am going to
leave it with you, gentlemen, with
this desultory argument, to consider
and give to him and declare what you
believe is right" The counsel for the
plaintiff took his seat. Mr.. Heselton
had spoken steadily for just an hour.
The clock said 11.34 and 10-minute
recess was order by the court.
Following the recess Justice Cornish
began his charge to the jury. He
pointed out that the case, which had
lasted two and one-half days. involv
ed a great many statements of fact.
The arguments of both counsel he re-
garded as having been very able and
very thorough and each had picked
out those facts upon which 1t had
built its case.
He described the case as an action
Of negligence which had grown out of
"a contract" between the parties This
contract was mere carefully explain
ed to be the mutual obligations of
doctor toward patient and patient to-
ward doctor from the time the doctor
entered upon the case. Ce~tain obli-
cations were Incumbent upon each
party, and the opportunity for negh-
gence existed with each.
Three, or possibly two isseus were
involved: u Did the doctor possess
ordinary skill? ca Did the doctor en-
pioy the ordinary skill that he did
possess? and (3) Dio tho doctor use
his best Judgment at all times? The
first issue, the court stated, did not
seem seriously commended: the second
was strongly contested as we'll as the
third.
Justice Cornish gave very clarifying
classification of the points upon which
the opposing sides clashed in their testi-
mony and in the differences drawn, and
instructed the jury in the rules of law
by means of which they were to deter
mine and reach their conclusion.
The first consideration of the jury would
be that of the facts, and the second as to
whether or not the patient was guilty OF
contributory negligence. The burden OF
proof rested upon the plaintiff to prove
the negligence of the doctor.
The Justice instructed the jury as to
their consideration and fixing just COM
pensation for Mr. Merrill If they should
find it necessary. The charge was con-
cluded by speaking of the importance of
the case " DOlli ZIG p1siSA1 ohu ~ ~
physician.
The jury was excused and court was
adjourned at 1924.
Afternoon Session
The afternoon session of court opened
at o'clock and the jury in the case
which had lasted nearly three days were
ushered to their room by Deputy Sheriff
Eastman.
After being out for nearly two hours
the jury returned and presented verdict
in favor of the plaintiff for the sum OF
$1,000 A motion for a new trial was filed.
Immediately after the retirement of the
Jury in the Merrill VS.. Odiorne case the
case in which the will of the late Alfred
Thompson of Portland is contested was
brought before the court. Joseph B. Reed
of Portland is the representative of the
contestant, Agnes Loring of Portland.
The proponents of the win are Attorneys
Harvey D. Eaton and Frank E. Brown
of Watefville. The allegations in the case
involve soundness of mind, undue infiu-
ence and certain legal requirements in
the making of the will.
But one side of the case had been heard
when court adjourned at $50 in the after
noon until $50 this morning.
The damage suit which was slated for
trial at the present term of court under
the title &C A. Haskell of Sidney VS..
Mrs E. s. Lincoln of Gardiner has been
settled out of court. Attorneys Fisher and
Maher were employed by the respective
parties. The case was the outcome OF
an automobile accident
kinhHskI nv