Hoxsey v. Murray

Citations

• 84 Wash. 588
• 147 P. 205
• 1915 Wash. LEXIS 813

Syllabus

<p>Appeal — Review—Verdict. The verdict of a jury upon directly conflicting evidence upon the only question at issue is conclusive on appeal.</p> <p>Appeal — Review—Discretion—New Trial. A ruling on motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence will not be disturbed except for abuse of discretion.</p> <p>New Trial — -Grounds—Newly Discovered Evidence — Diligence— Probable Result. Where the principal issue was as to whether the plaintiff, a physician, was authorized to perform an operation for removal of the Fallopian tubes and ovaries, defendant claiming that he was only authorized to remove the appendix, a new trial for newly discovered evidence showing that, after the trial, defendant had an operation to prove that the appendix had been removed, is properly refused for want of diligence, where, early in the trial, lasting several days, the plaintiff testified that he had not removed the appendix, and the defendant then offered to have the operation performed, but no operation was performed at that time and no continuance was asked, and the case was submitted on the evidence; especially where it is not satisfactorily shown that the new evidence would or ought to produce a different result.</p> <p>Physicians and Surgeons — Actions for Services — Issues—Evidence — Admissibility. In an action to recover for the services of a physician in the removal of the Fallopian tubes and the ovaries, made necessary, according to plaintiff’s testimony, by a diseased condition of those organs caused by the defendant’s attempt to produce an abortion upon herself by the use of a catheter, evidence of statements made by the defendant to the plaintiff and others that she used a catheter upon herself for that purpose is admissible upon an issue as to whether the operation was necessary or was authorized by the defendant.</p>