Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1915-05-16
HEIR TO &,OOO,OOO,
BUT ONLY ON PAPER;
RUSE TRIPS HIM UP
Continued from Page one,)

Continued from rage One.)
suit, though he had forgotten the detail
of his previous service.
Supreme Court Checks Testimony.
with this new-found information the at
torneys for the defendant went into Judge
Sears court and procured from him An
order for a new trial. and IL was this
order that the supreme court has just
sustained in an opinion. which concludes
as follows:
1T appears that in his petition in the
original action the plaintiff alleged vart-
Gus injuries TO his person. and among
others. that his face was bruised, cut
and torn over his left eye, and his scalp
torn He alleged that these Injuries
were permanent. Tho case wastried
twice In the district court and upon the
first trial the plaintiff was asked some
questions in regard TO the effect of his
injury upon the eye and answered; Why.
I lost the sight of my left eye The plain
tiff then took leave TO amend his petit
ton. but afterwards when the case came
on for further hearing the plaintiff, hay-
ing failed 70 amend his petition in that
regard. he was asked: How did that cut
on your eve affect YOUR eyer He was
allowed TO answer this question, but he
produced his physician, DR.. Impey as a
witness. who testified to the cut over his
left eye and that II had sealed up and
that there was a scar left. which had not
completely healed. He was asked: And
no permanent effect from that. at aliT
DR.. Impey answered: The eye. think,
is permanently injured
Tho evidence was that some time
prior to the injury complained of the
plaintiff lad suffered an Injury from be-
Ing thrown out of buggy. and that in
his claim FOR. insurance DR.. Impey had
testified that the plaintiff had lost the
sight OF his left eye by this former In
jury and the plaintiff had recovered his
insurance upon that basis. Upon the
hearing in this case. DR.. Impey testified
that he was the plaintiffs attending
physician upon his former injury. Being
asked what kind OF an injury II was he
treated him for. he answered: I don't
remember the exact nature of these In
juries; think ne was hurt about the
face and head. IL l remember right And
when he was asked the nature OF the
injury, no testified:
don't remember the exact injury. He
was thrown out or thrown over the
0AHnbOhfQs anu NHllAh nc WeAo hAChon
about the head and face at the time;
He was kicked by the horse, but I could
not say where, exactly. .. Do you re-
member the result OF that kickf A.
Ssm nS be the rs sSiSy Of ala you hSSS
TO sew up the wounds, or what did you
have to do with tho wound that re-
suited from the kickG A. ! don't re-
member what did for him at that time.
q. How long was he in bed after thatf
A. don't know that, either. y. How
long did you attend him. A. CosdA not
say. When he was, asked; You have
Der about the injury that occurred at
that time? He answered, Yes, sir,
have. After DIT. Impey had testified
The plaintiff was recalled and was asked:
and answered.: THE eye was swollen
quite bad O.. How long were
you laid up from the effects OF that In
by work again. Q. DID You ever eSper-
fence any later effects from Il after the
two weeks? 4. No. nobody else except
DIR. Impey. q. What I am asking you
that, at the end of two weeks? A. Yes,
sir: / was a little weak for awhile, but
IL gradually got better Q. state whether
or not. at the time YOU fell Dawn this
that time you had suffered from this
injury, this prior injury at all9 Yes.
sir. O. What l want to know 10 whether
YOU were suffering from this injury.
after YOU. got hurt, thrown out Of the
S psEsy al ali -. You mo ney SS0 cs e q an nS
specialist? A. No. sir, Q. What elese
dd or i Inn sys 40 BESIDES P %as
the eye swollen up 40 You could not see
A. Yes, sir, few days. Q. How many
days do you thing II was swollen up 50
TsS l think 1t was i three or four
DAYS. O. But still you were confined
10 the house something like two weeks
from this? Yes. sir ,. Were you hurt
ar' n'"o0 elseP A, No. SIR"
The trial court saw these witnesses and
observed their manner and the effect OF
their testimony and evidently concluded
that they intended To snd did deceive the
court and jury. probably leading them
TO believe that the plaintiff had lost the
sight OF his eye by reason OF the aeci-
dent for which he sued The law neces-
sarily trusts largely 10 the discretion OF
the trial court In such matters. This
court cannot interfere unless there Is an
abuse OF discretion. Under such eircum-
stances the decision OF the trial court In
passing upon the application to vAeats
the former judgment ought not TO he
interfered with by this court. II follows
that the judgment Of the district court
Is affirmed"
And so. while the fabulous fortune In
Germany has vanished. the famous Wun-
rath case Is again back on the docket
for a third trial. II u ever comes to trial
again. wunrath's attorneys are Bronze
q Bronze and on the other side are Nolan
4 Woodland; incidentally. the Ocean Ao-
cident company Is interested TO The exc
tent Of a liability policy, while the direct
defendantas are represented by Mahonoy
4 Kennedy.
Join the Y. M e. A. on the special
| Than ma