The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1923-02-09
DOCTOR COUNSEL
SPRINGSAFF|DAV|T
Claims Some New Evidence
For W. T. DeCoster
NEW TRIAL SOUGHT
Action In Which Miss Gladys
Nenno Was Given $4,000
Verdict

Material evidence, newly discoV-
cred, in the form of an affidavit by
Mrs. Frieda Jones, together with nu-
merous objections relative to admis-
sion Of certain evidence, error Of
law and the instructions of the court
to the jury, are the grounds upon
which the attorneys for DIR. w. T.
DeCoster, Mankato physician. ask
GLADYS Nenno against DR.. DeCoster.
The Former Verdict
Miss Memo was granted a verdict
of $4,000 of her claim for $25, 900
damages against DR.. DeCoster during
the November term of district court
here. The case involves breach of
promise action in which the defend
ant disclaims having had any rela-
lions with the plaintiff in regard to
a marriage contract. The case dur
ing the previous trial attracted con-
siderable attention among men and
women Of the city, the court room
being crowded during the entire
course Of the trial.
The section of the motion made
by Attorney G. o. Daley, one Of the
counsels for the defendent, upon
which the counsel depends to a
great extent to have the order issued
for a new trial, is the affidavit of
Mrs. Frieda Jones. The date for the
hearing on the motion has been set
for March 5, 1928, during the regular
term of district court.
In the affidavit by Mrs. Jones, she
states that she did not bring forth
her evidence previous or during the
course of the other trial as she did
not desire to be drawn into the mat
| ter.
Claims To Have Had Conversation
The gist of the new evidence to be
introduced by Mrs. Jones is con-
versation she purports to have had
with Miss Nenno in the waiting
room of the office Of DR.. DeCoster
during the month of July or August
of 1922. 1t. is upon this conversation
that the defendants counsel will
| seek to have verdict set aside and a
new trial ordered.
In the affidavit, Mrs. Jones states
that she had conversation with
Miss Nenno, and that the plaintiff in
the case told her the several nurses
Of DR.. DeCoster were Jealous of her
because she went out riding with
him on various occasions. The Aft
ant further states that Miss Nenno
told her of an occasion when nurse
named Margaret stated that the doc
tor had lived with her as man and
wife and that he was fast man, but
she, Miss Nenno, did not believe it.
The affiant also states Miss Nenno
told her that during all of the three
years in which she had went riding
with the doctor on various occasions
he had always acted as gentleman.
Miss Nenno, the affiant states,
went riding with the doctor to get
plenty of fresh air as a means of
overcoming the affliction of tuber-
culosis for which DR.. DeCoster was
treating her.
Other Things Set Forth
Counsel for the defendent also
sets forth that the verdict of the
jury was not justified by the evil
dence and is contrary to law; that
excessive damages appearing to have
been given under the influence of
passion and prejudice; that errors
Of law occurring at the trial of said
action and duly accepted to at the
time; that there was irregularity in
the proceedings of the trial court by
which the defendent was prevented
fair trial. that there is fatal var
lance between the proof and the com
plant in said cause, that the plain
TIL wholly Jailed to sustain the ale
cation of her complaint against the
defendent: that the court erred in
permitting counsel for the plaintiff
in examining Mrs, Florence Nenno,
over the objections Of counsel for
the defense, on matters pertaining
to visit the witness sought to have
her daughter take.
Claims Court Erred
The counsel for the defendent also
contends that the court erred in the
instructions given to the jury rela-
tive to taking into consideration b.
the jury of the status of each of the
parties and their standings in the
community also in regard to what
verdict should be given in the meas
urement Of damages in such a case.
Three sections OF the petition for a
new trial are devoted to the objec-
tons of the counsel to the instruc-
lions by the court.
Attorneys c. o. Daley of Mankato,
e. S. Carey and John A. Holland,
MINNEAPOLIS and Moonan and Moon
an of Waseca are representing DR..
DeCOstpr in the case ATTORNEY g p