The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1914-05-21
From Ramsey County

Peter J. Kersten, plaintiff and re-
spondent, VS.. Great Northern Rail-
way Company, defendant and appel"
liant.
Cd Evidence examined, and found
sufficient to sustain the verdict.
G Evidence offered by the defend
ant, showing the effect upon other
passengers and train crew who were
in the same wreck, was first reject
ed by the trial court for the reason
that the conditions surrounding such
witnesses differed materially from
those surrounding the plaintiff. AS
to most Of the witnesses this objection
was properly sustained. However,
the trial court later made the follow
ingstatement to defendants counsel:
Il don't think this evidence is ad-
missible, but l am going to let 1t In,
and you, Gentlemen of the Jury,
when l let it in, will consider it for
| what it is worth after the instructions
of the court at the close of the case"
After those remarks the defendant re-
called certain of his witnesses who
were allowed to testify along the lines
desired. If there was any error it
was cured by this proceeding.
CD A doctor was called as a witness
and was asked to base his opinion en-
tirely upon the testimony Of the
plaintiff, which he had heard, and to
state what in his opinion was the
cause Of the injuries Of which the
plaintiff complained. The defendant
objected upon the grounds that the
question assumed a state of facts
not in controversy, irrelevant, in
competent and no foundation laid"
Held, that the objection was INSULT
cient to raise the point that it was not
a proper hypothetical question.
"a A doctor who testified for the
defendant was asked upon cross-ex-
animation as to whether or not GER
tain medical text books and authori-
ties sustained a doctrine contrary to
that held by him. Defendant objected
to this inquiry. 1t appears that the
tex books in question were present.
ed to the witness, thus showing the
good faith Of the questioner. The
DISCRIMINATION was proper to test
the credibility Of the witness.
60 1t was not reversible error to
restrict the cross-eXamination Of
plaintiffs witness, DR.. Jones, such
matters resting largely in the sound
discretion of the trial court.
(6) objection was properly sustain
ed to the following question asked of
defendants expert, DR.. Sihler. @,
Gould that condition, or these symp-
toms, be brought about by a tap on
the head, not severe enough to produce
any immediate symptoms Of that
kind?" The question assumed a state
of facts not in evidence. The same
objection was sustained to other
questions set forth in the opinion.
CD During the argument to the
jury, plaintiff asked to amend his
complaint in a slight particular, in no
way changing the issues, nor necessi-
Eating any substantial change in the
defense. There was no error in al
lowing the amendment.
go Certain instructions of the
trial court examined and no error
found therein.
(9) Certain instructions refused by
the trial court are found to be fully
covered by other portions of the
charge.
1O) Certain instructions examined
and held not to place the burden OF
proof upon the defendant.
q1) Defendant insists that the
general conduct of the trial court
was calculated to, and did. prejudice
the defendants rights. Careful ex-
animation of the record does not sub
stantiate this complaint.
(syIIabus by the Court. =.
Appeal from the district court of
Ramsey county, Cowen. J.
Affirmed. Opinion of the court of
Burke, J.
Murphy & Duggan, Grand Forks. N.
D., attorneys for defendant and APP
pellant.
F. T. Cuthbert and A. R. smythe.
o of Devils Lake, N. D., attorneys
Tor plaintiff and respondent.