The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1922-04-15
LOCAL ATTORNEY
TR|ESNEW TRICK
INGOURT TODAY
Traction Lawyers Want Vic
tins Of Accident Examined
by Company Doctor

An innovation in Circuit Court
procedure was sprung at the motion
hour in court today when Tusca
Morris Of counsel for the Monongl.
hela Valley Traction Co, a corpora.
ton, presented a motion to the
court for consideration in connec-
tion with the cases Of Cora j. Enty,
Mamie E. Sidley and Audie Ash
Snider vs.. the Monongahela Valley
Traction Co. The motion present.
ed by Morris was to the effect that
the three plaintiffs In cases against
the traction company be forced by
the court to submit to a physicsl
examination by a physician EN-
ployed by the traction company
before their cases are heard by the
court.
Judge W. s. Meredith accepted
the motions, and after Frank G.
Raymond Of counsel for the plaintiff
had served notice on the court that
he, ,opppsed the filing Of the motion
iiftdseieedy he b 81 b Supfeins
Court Of, the Unite a States In o sim
liar case to back up his argument
against the motion the court an.
nounced that It would hear argu.
ments on the motion at 8 o'clock
Monday morning.
The papers filed by Attorney
Morris set up the facts that the
plaintiffs in the three cases, who
are suing his client for $40 900 each,
in their declaration claim that they
were permanently injured as a re-
suit OF an accident on the traction
line Of tho said traction company.
An affidavit filed in connection with
the motion sets forth that H. E.
Woodward, assistant claim agent
for the company, says that the
plaintiffs have never been exam
lined by an agent of the company
and therefore they are not ready
to go to trial until such an examina.
tion is made. The last paper filed
with the motion requests the court
to issue an order requiring the
plaintiffs to present themselves for
examination.
In the case OF the Great Amer!.
can Insurance Co. vs.. NJ. T. obio
ct al, Frank G. Raymond, attorney
for the defense, filed an order dis,
missing the case fully satisfied at
cost OF the defendant. Walter R.
Haggerty represented the plaintitf
In the case.
The case OF the washburn.C .Cros-
by Co. VS.. Joe sergi was next
called, and as the case was expect.
cd to occupy the rest OF the day
the other Jurors were all excused
until Monday morning, The trial
Jury selected to hear the evidence
in the CASE before court was com.
posed OF W. S. pitEer, John e.
Gantz, ]. E. Parrish, A. II. Hun.
saker, Samuel Leeper, George H.
Brobst, F. A. Haddix, c. d. West,
Allison Merrifield, o. F. Graham,
Carl D. Yost, and Arch Brown.
field.
The plaintiff Is suing for 500 al
leSed to be due and owing from
the defendant for a car OF flour
shipped from the plaintiffs mill to
the defendant In this city. Sergi
claims that. he had a claim against
the plaintiff company for some
flour damaged in shipment prior to
his ordering the car in controversy,
and that the representative OF the
Washburn. Crosby Co, who sold
him the car load Of flour In contro.
versy. had promised to send him
check for the damaged flour.
sergi says that when 81 check
did not arrive In a reasonable time,
he countermanded the order for
the flour and that the plaintiff com.
pany shipped It after he cancelled
his order and are trying to make
him pay for the flour which he re
fused.