Court Opinion

ID: 9825636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 13:49:50.370406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:13.923182
License: Public Domain

Supplemental opinion on motion for rehearing. Delivered May 25, 1895. Hughes, J. The motion for reconsideration in this case is based upon the court’s refusal to have the plaintiff brought into court, that the jury might by inspection determine the extent of the disfigurement of the plaintiff, for which in part damages were claimed as well as that an examination of his person might be made by medical experts. The motion in the court below that plaintiff should be brought into court was based, as we construe it, solely upon the ground that a personal examination might, be made by medical experts. The examination was ordered to be made at the plaintiff’s home, and the motion to have him brought into court was denied. Had the motion been made to have the plaintiff brought into court that the jury might see for themselves the extent of the disfigurement of his person, this would have raised a question which is not in our ^opinion presented by the record, and which cannot be raised here for the first time. The motion is denied.