Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1921-03-05
CASE AS TO JURY Jury
]. ! !. LATEND DAY
-Marsden Action Will
BE Submitted to Jurors
This Afternoon.
Arguments Of Counsel Be
gun This Morning; Clash
| Between Attorneys.

Jaw Arguments of counsel in the case
of H. G. Owen VS.. DR.. c. s. Marsden.
In which the plaintiff seeks to recover
e25 800 for so-called damages as a
result of alleged malpractice, were be1
gun in district court this morning.
When court recessed at noon. there
still was to be heard the arguments
OF n attorney for the defendant and
the final summing up of counsel for
the plaintiff. Sveinbjorn Johnson, Of
counsel for the plaintiff. argued for
an hour and Is minutes this morning,
and he was followed by Attorney
John Thorpe Of Velva OF counsel for
the defendant. Mr.. Thorpe spoke for
three quarters of an hour. when he
announced that Mr.. Burtnees would
analyze the testimony in his iargu-
ments this afternoon. The case will
go to the jury late this afternoon.
Arguments this morning were pune
tuated twice by lively tits between
counsel-in the first instance between
Mr.. B%urtness and Mr.. Johnson and in
the second between Mr.. johnson and
MIR. Thorpe.
Clash Between Counsel.
/" The lash between Mr.. johnson
and Mr.. Burtness came after Mr..
Johnson had referred to the testimony
of DR. c.. E. Hunt regarding an ex-
animation he made of the plaintiff
last Sunday. Mr.. johnson referred TO
the fact that DIR. Hunt had testified
that he was called to the Owen home
during sue a spell" referring to a
heart attack n that he had men
toned something about being afraid
Of being called as a witness. Mr..
Burtness interrupted Mr.. Johnson, de-
dence before the jury. He demanded
that the court reporter be called to
put Mr.. Johnson's statement on rec
ord.
Mr.. Johnson admitted making q
statement regarding DR.. Hunts testi-
uony and said to the jury that he
would retract IL he had wrongfully
cited the evidence.
Mr.. Burtness i~nterposed an objec-
ton to Mr.. Johnson's arguments on
the grounds that they were highly
pre1uidicial to the defendant.
Analyses Testimony.
In his arguments. Mr.. johnson
e over the testimony at some
was an ordinary operation, that lhe
plaintiffs health was good up to the
time he had %tonsilitis in June. 1919,
and that he never had tonsilitis OF
qufnsys prior to that time. He told OF
the plaintiffs visits to the defendant
Tor treatment n finally OF the op-
Grafton. He said he did not want to
reflect upon any witness. but he be-
3lieved in calling a spade a spade
The evidence showed. he said. that
the defendant went into the operat.
ing room with a cigar. either in hit
mouth or his hand; that he took hie
instruments out of his case and that
there was no sterilization. either OF
instruments or hands. in that room
The right tonsil was removed first, he
said. and came out in two pieces
causing considerable pain. He de.
clared that the plaintiff maintained
that It was the condition of the right
tonsil It the time of the operation
that caused subsequent trouble.
In speaking Of the testimony Of the
defendant. he said that his Ode
f~endant's) memory was fallible and
his testimony should not be depended
upon. He said that he testified to ont