Evening star., 1928-12-27

And. by the way, how do you account
for this 5-year old boy who could
keep his mouth SO tightly shut that
he fooled everybody from Judge to
Jury and doctors to attorneys and claim
agents, and almost collected $4,000
damages? It's certainly a new type
of prodigy. II. II.
Reply.
This tail-end of a personal letter
has been duplicated by several in
quiries over the telephone to the same
effect.
The case is briefly this: In 1923
truck crashed into baby carriage
in which Hyman Friedman, months
old, was taking a nap. Since then,
his mother asserts, he has remained
mute, can't say word. Mrs Friedman
accepted $2500 for his injuries at the
time, but has been holding out for
heavy damages for the permanent mis-
fortune of her son, now little over
years old. All this time, whenever
tested by specialists in nervous dis
orders and by lawyers and the rest, the
child has remained speechless.
In the Supreme Court of New York
Justice Gibbs was moved to pity at
the sight of this speechless boy, but
he didn't let his emotions interfere
with his Judgment. He arranged to
have two of the boys playmates play
in an adjoining room, where they
thought they were alone. A court
attendant. who was concealed there,
was amazed to hear Hyman talking
like the other boys. The usual squabble
arose, and to the question, who
pinched you Hyman?" the reply was
''That big slob over there" Hyman
could speak as well as any boy OF 5.
| The Judge was outraged and committed
the mother to jail for perjury, exoner-
ating the attorneys.
That the mother could so well coach
the child seems remarkable; but evi-
! dently boy of can be coached
Mother and child might have used
| their talents to better purpose.
The biggest part of the clue to
| this case is q credit to human nature.
Every one would have pity for mother
and child, and no one would suspect
| that a mere babe could be taught to
put up such a bluff and stick to 1t.
| The innocence of childhood stood in
| the way of too harsh or skeptical an
examination; nor would we readily sup
pose that a mother would exploit her
child to get money. We shall con-
tinue to be charitable just the same.
The good side of human nature comes
out well in this tale; but good sense
doesn't come out so well.
If the examiners had been skeptical
enough (and we know why they
weren't), it would have been easy to
detect the trick For we know some
thing about the psychology Of mailing
ering, or feigning illness, OF course. as
applied to adults. One method is TO
catch the pretender off guard when
he doesn't know he is under observa--
ton; the second is to arrange a test
by using bit of apparatus as a decoy.
For example, a man claiming that
as result of an injury he couldn't
see out or one eye was asked to look
in a box and read the words there
exposed. He did not know that the
operator could SO adjust the appara-
tus that some of the words would ap-
pear to one eye only and other words
only to the other eye Cor all to botn
eyes); and he continued to read with
the blind" eye, and the game was up.
With deafness or muteness the test
Is not so easy; but 1t can be managed.
I had far more complicated problem
some years ago In examining girl.
said to be blind and deaf, who claimed
strange powers of telling colors by
smell, and hearing by her finger tips in
terms of vibrations. 1t was easy to
| prove that. though nearly blind, she
| had sight enough to "tell" colors placed
under her nose: but the hearing by
vibrations was not so easy, because we
do get something that way. When
concluded that the girl actually heard
as we all do, I was denounced
as a cruel skeptic. Two years later
she announced that she was "miracu-
Either method if carefully used would