Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-03-03
DEFENSE BEGINS :
EVIDENCE TODAY
Court Denies Motion Of De
PENDANT For Directed Yer
dict in Marsden Case.

Judge NJ. J. Englert Of Valley City
this morning denied the motion OF
counsel for the defendant for q di-
rected verdict in favor of the defend
ant in the ase of H. G. Owen VS.. DR..
c. S. Marsden, in which the plaintir
seeks damages to the extent Of $3.50
for alleged injuries. The motion was
denied after w. A. Mcintyre Of counsel
for the defense had argued the ques-
ton. Shortly after the defense com
menced its case. DR.. Marsden being
the first witness called.
The motion was made shortly after
court convened this morning. The
cross examination n redirect ex-
animation of DR.. j. G. Arneberg was
completed at 1880 o'clock, when
Sveinbjorn Johnson, counsel for the
plaintiff. announced that he rested his
case. o. B. Burtness. representing
Tense rested, after which hi made his
motion for q directed verdict for the
defendant.
The motion was made on the
grounds that there was no competent
evidence in the record to show that
the defendant was guilty Of any neg
ligence in the performance of the
operation" 1t was made on the
further grounds that. If there was any
ally 1lO6llSOIlCo ia
the performance of the operation,
there was absolutely no testimony
tending to show n damages by rea-
son Of any such negligence"
Mcintyre Argues Motion.
During the arguments OF counsel on
the motion the jury was dismissed. In.
his argument Mr.. Mcintyre said that
there was no competent evidence es-
tabltshtng negligence or lack of skill
or proper care In the performance Of
the operation. He said there wasn't
even a suspicion that there was a lack
OF skill or proper care. There was no
expert testimony, he said. tending to
establish any lack Of skill in the
treatment Of the patient. He said
that there were only two questions to-
c. slider: First, whether or not there
was any negligence, and. IL there was
any negligence. what injury was the
result? He said that there was no
testimony to show that the defend
ants hands werel not clean when he
performed the operation. The only
evidence on this point, he said, was
the plaintiffs testimony to the fact.
that he did not see DR.. Marsden wash
his hands. That was negative evil
dence. he said, and should not be
considered. Mr.. Mcintyre commended
that the questions were not in. the
province OF the Jury to determine. It.
should not be left to the speculation
or surrnise Of q jury, he said.
The court ruled that the question
was close one. and that he would
deny the motion. 81
Defendant - Called.
Counsel for the defense then asked
permission to reopen the case for the
u-ro Of putting In evidence, ana
this was granted. The Jury was sum-.
moned and Mr.. BurtneSs outlined the
Defendants case.
Dr.. Marsden was the flrst witness
called and he had been under direct
examination for nearly an hour whom
court recessed. His testimony VIII So
concluded this AFTERNOON
The defendant war examined - %
fis records In the Owen cass, : to
his treatment Of the piaintfR for tom
istlttts andssas TO the operation. He
declared that 10 Thoroughly washed
and sterilteel shls hands and that he
.AertliseA hiS tAafuments before ne
sVperAtion W4a performed. S
Dr.. J. q. AFnGbert 5and N. e.
Hunt WMSeA1ed ~ athe paaintta go
ItsFAAy estssnssA Assexpsst witnesses.