Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1914-10-21
SUPREME COURT
Case of Merrill VS.. OdiOrne Con-
sumes the Entire Day
Thursday and Is
Yet Unfinished

| Tuesdays session of the supreme
court was a busy day for the oppos-
! ing counsel in the Merrill vs. Odiorne
case, which was opened Monday. The
| case is a suit for damages by the
plaintiff for the alleged malpractice
| of DR.. j. f. Odiorne in the setting or
the thigh bone which the former had
broken in what is called shaft frac-
| ture" Counsel for the plaintiff are
George w. Heselton, Everett H. Maxcy
and Ernest l.. Goodspeed. The defend
ant is represented by counsel c. A.
/ Knight and A. S. Littlefeld
| Court opened at $50 in the morning
and though the defence had been open
ed on the preceding day by Mr.. Knight
the Court allowed Mr.. Heselton to call
Mrs. Merrill to the stand in behalf of
the plaintiff. Her testimony was in
regard to the weights used to main
| tain the leg in proper position While
1t was healing. she said that one of
the weights had fallen off. 1t was such
as is used on scales, she said, and had
| groove in it, which made it natur-
ally hard to keep in place.
Fifteen witnesses were called by the
defence and were sworn in. Later in
the day two other witnesses were
sworn in for the defence The first to
take the stand was DR.. Odiorne.
After the preliminaries of stating
his experience and his practice in the
vicinity of East Pittston and North
Whitefield his testimony confined it
self to the particular case which he
attended in the treatment of shaft
fracture of the femur upon o. P. Mer-
rill. the complainant. His testimony
set forth that when he took the case
he found the condition of the patient
as bad in the extreme. The injured
leg showed a shortening of about four
inches. This he had attempted to rem
edy by the use Of a Bucks extension
after first bringing the fractured points
as nearly in opposition as possible.
This he stated as being universally
recognized as a method of treatment
of such case. Sand bags were applied
to prevent lateral motion of the leg.
Aside from the fracture he stated
that he found a large amount of swell
ing and a burn of a serious nature
about eight inches long. 1t was neces-
sary to remove a part of the sphnt for
the treatment of the burn.
Morphine, he said, he had left with
instructions to Mrs. Merrill for its use
when necessary to relieve the suffer-
ing of the patient He said that he
had also given strict instructions that
the weights employed in the Bucks
extension for the purpose of keeping
the fractured points in place should
under no circumstances be removed.
He stated that on one occasion he had
found the weights resting on a chair
and that frequently he found a part
of them missing. Mrs. Merrill TOLD
him, the doctor said, that she had been
obliged to remove the weights on ac-
count of her husbands suffering, ane
should If Mr.. Merrill advised.
Further testimony of DR.. Odiorre re-
lated that sores had formed on the
heel. of the patient due to liberation,
caused by pressure being brought TO
bear upon the heel This, he said. was
quite common in such cases. In re-
gard to his placing plaster of parts
boot" over the sore the doctor stat
ed that there was no sore on the heel
when he put the boot on. Such ul
ceration, the doctor considered was
the result of the heel being allowed
to rest directly upon the mattress,
which thing he had cautioned them
about.
A natural union, or more correctly.
"bony union" of the fractured points.
the witness said. should take place IN
from four to five weeks. An interfer-
ence with the weights would allow a
slipping which would tend to defeat
.bony union" the doctor stated.
In the vicinity of six or seven weeks
after taking the case the doctor sad
he noted a fibrous union, and advised
hospital treatment and an open opera
ton. Merrill refused to consider the
proposition, the doctor stated, and said
he wouldn't go anywhere they'd make
him keep the weights on If he didn't
want them.
Upon the patients REFUSAL to go to
| the hospital a trained nurse was adj
vised which, the witness says Nj.
Merrill likewise refused. On May s,
DR.. Simons of Gardiner visited the pa
tient with Dr. Odiorne The matter
of going to the hospital was again dis
cussed with like consequences, the
witness stated. Consequently, with the
patients consent, anesth~tics were adj
ministered and re-setting of the
points of fracture was undertaken.
On July 8, DR.. Odiorne testified, he
had told the patient that ne had done
what he could for him and that Il
was of no use for him to continue his