case, where he was born and what he said about where he was born.
Court: I don’t know what it has to do with it. My recollection is that on yesterday he said all those
statements were untrue, and he gave his reasons why he made them.
Mr. Hall: And now he says he don’t know whether they are untrue or not.
Answer – That is, as to where I was born.
Q. How many days did you work at Washington Steel and Ordnance place? Answer – five or six days.
Q. Do you know whether there were any x-ray photographs taken of your head? Answer – I think there were two photographs taken by Dr. Grover.
Q. Do you know the results of that x-ray picture?
Mr. Patterson: Objected to unless he knows the result.
Answer – I don’t know the result, because they were never shown to me.
Court: I sustain the objection.
Mr. Hall: You never saw the pictures? Answer – No, sir.
By Mr. Mackey:
Q. You said something about you gave up your position partly or wholly because you could not ride a wheel; how long had you been riding a wheel in your collection business and working for the Singer Sewing Machine Company? Answer – For the Singer Sewing Machine Company I rode it up to the time of the accident, and after that I had to walk.
Q. How long was it you had ridden it? Answer – Four or Five years.
Q. How many years did you ride a bicycle? Answer – In all about ten years.
Mr. Mackey: I will read some depositions. Before we do that, I want to offer in evidence the lease
of the railroads to show the relations between the two companies, but not to bear on negligence in any way.
Mr. Hall: We have no objection to the lease, or that part of it being introduced which shows that
the C&O Railway was operating over the line between Orange & Alexandria, Virginia, under a contract as specified in that lease.
Court: There is no use in putting the whole lease in to be copied if the case goes up.
Mr. Hall: It is inadmissible under the Trimmer case.
Court: Will you all agree to such portions?
Mr. Hall: They are not agreeing to anything with respect to the lease.
Court: I will admit such portions as affects this case, or the condition of the track.
Mr. Hall:Mr. Mackey only wants such portions to go in as show the contract relations.
Court: That is the only part I will let in.
Mr. Browning: Before your Honor makes a final ruling on that point I want to read just what he
wants to go in. I expect we had better object to its introduction, and then he can read what he chooses.
Court: All right.
Mr. Mackey: I want to ask if counsel for the Southern Railway was the successor of the
whole lease into the record, but we simply object to it.
Mr. Mackey: Will you require us to bring the clerk here to prove the book?
Mr. Hall: So far as the Southern Railway Company is concerned, we have admitted what Mr.
Mackey has ask us to admit.
Court: They have admitted it and I don’t see the use in reading it.
Mr. Mackey: Mr. Browning has not admitted it.
Mr. Browning: We do not require the reading of it.
Mr. Mackey: I will state that we offer in evidence paragraphs Two and Three of the lease and
agreement dated December 23, 1890, between the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company, a corporation, and the Virginia Midland Railway Company, and the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company, paragraph second being as follows, found in Deed Book No. 40 at pages 338, 339, 340, 341, 242 of the Land Records of the county of Prince William, Virginia. The second paragraph is as follows:
The Richmond and Danville Railroad does hereby grant to the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company a right to use jointly with the said Richmond & Danville Railroad Company the portion of said line of railway of the Virginia Midland Railway Company extending from the aforesaid connection in the said town of Orange to the connection with the line of railway of the Washington-southern Railway Company in the City of Alexandria, in the said state of Virginia, including passing tracks, side tracks, switches and water stations, but not including tracks at terminals or intermediate stations for storage of cars, for the purpose of running on the said line between Orange and Alexandria the passenger (including mail and express and freight) and other trains of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company for ninety-nine years from the first day of April, 1891, and renewable forever, upon the following terms and conditions: The maintenance and operation of the said portion of the Virginia Midland Railway extending from Orange to said connection with the line of the Southern Railway at Alexandria shall be under the charge and supervision of the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company, and the same shall be kept and maintained in thoroughly good and suitable order and condition by it, including the necessary water stations. The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company shall, however, have and is hereby given the right, at its own cost, to erect at any time or times and maintain suitable coaling stations and oil and sand houses at convenient points for its own use on the line between Orange and Alexandria, with right of suitable access thereto, and with the right to haul its supplies to and from such stations and houses. The trains and employees of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company, while upon the road of the Virginia Midland Railway Company, shall be subject to the reasonable regulations and orders of the Superintendent or other proper officer of the said Richmond & Danville Railroad Company. The train service between the town of Orange and City of Alexandria shall be placed under a separate train dispatcher, and to secure uniformity in time, rules and signals and wages the said Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company agrees to adopt between Orange and Alexandria the standard time, train rules, and signals, and rates op pay that may be in use from time to time by the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company between the points mentioned.
Mr. Mackey: Let the record show that it is stipulated between counsel for the plaintiff and the two
defendants companies that the foregoing is all that need be offered in evidence of paragraph Two on behalf of the plaintiff, with the right on behalf of the defendants to read all or any other portion of said paragraph to the jury.
“(3) The Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company accepts the grant to the joint use of the said railway between Orange and Alexandria, and covenants and agrees that during the continuance thereof it will pay to the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company, its successors or assigns, an annual rental for the right to the joint use of the said line of railway between Orange and Alexandria such proportions of the sum of $125,000.00, being interest at the rate of five per cent per annum upon a valuation of twenty-five hundred thousand dollars per annum as the engine and car mileage of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway on the said line of railway bears from time to time to the combined engine and car mileage of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company and Richmond & Danville Railway Company, and their successors and assigns on said line of railroad; provided, however, that in no event shall the rental by the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company further covenants and agrees that it will pay, when and as payable, such proportions of all the taxes, United States, county or municipal, hereafter assessed upon the line of railway between Orange and Alexandria used jointly hereunder as the engine and car mileage of the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Company on said line of railway between Orange and Alexandria bears from time to time to the total engine and car mileage of all railway companies on said line of railway”.
Mr. Mackey: It is stipulated by counsel that no more of paragraph Three need be offered by the
plaintiff, but that counsel for both defendant railways reserve the right to read to the jury all or any part of said paragraph three. We offer those in evidence with this limitation, that the court instruct the jury that the law fixes the degree ------
Court: You do not want to offer the instruction yet.
Mr. Mackey: We want to conform to the Court of Appeals in the Trimmer case. “The court
instructs the jury that the law fixes the care that a common carrier owes to the passenger as the utmost care, and the contract or lease between the Chesapeake and Ohio and Southern Railway was admitted in evidence for the purpose of showing the relative duties of those companies to each other, and for no other purpose, and that the effect of such contract or lease should be limited to that one question of the relative duties of the defendant companies to each other.” Now, we offer that in evidence.
(It is stipulated by counsel for the plaintiff the defendant railroads that the Southern Railway Company, as the successor of the Richmond and Danville Railroad Company and the Virginia Midland Railway, became the owner of all rights and subject to the liabilities included in said lease, the conveyance from the Richmond and Danville and Virginia Midland to the Southern Railway being recorded in Deed Book 43, page 121 of the Land Records of Prince William County, Virginia.
Mr. Mackey: I will read to the jury the deposition taken in behalf of the plaintiff.
“In the Circuit Court for the County of Prince William
William J. Sullivan, Plaintiff
Southern Railway Company, et al Defendants.
The depositions of Dr. William T. Davis, taken pursuant to the annexed notice, at No. 927 17th Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. on Saturday, March 25th, 1916, to be read as evidence in the above entitled cause.
Mr. Baumgardner, Claim Agent, Southern Railway Company
Mr. William H. Holloway, Notary Public.
The Stenographer and Witness
Thereupon: Dr. William T. Davis, a witness of lawful age, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. Mackey:
Q. State your name, age, residence and occupation? Answer – Dr. William T. Davis, age thirty nine; residence 927 17th Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C.; occupation, physician.
Q. Doctor, where did you graduate in medicine? Answer – George Washington University; graduated in 1901.
Q. Are you a surgeon as well as a physician? Answer – Yes.
Q. Have you practiced medicine and surgery ever since your graduation? Answer – Yes, sir.
Q. What if any medical societies do you belong to? Answer – District of Columbia Medical Society, American Medical Association, College of American Surgeons.
Q. Do you make any specialty of any branch of your profession? Answer – Yes, ophthalmology.
Q. Doctor, explain what you mean by ophthalmology? Answer – Diseases and surgery of the eye.
Q. How long have you followed that branch of the profession as a specialist? Answer – Seven years.
Q. State what, if any, special training or teaching, if any, you have had in the science of ophthalmology? Answer – I have studied at the University of Vienna, Austria, London, Berlin especially. I was instructor in the subject at the Army Medical School, this city, for four years.
Q. Have you had a patient by the Name of William J. Sullivan? Answer – yes.
Q. Is he the William J. Sullivan who has a suit pending against the C&O Railway and the Southern Railway? Answer – Yes, so I am informed.
Q. State who brought Mr. Sullivan to you as a patient for your special treatment? Answer – Dr. A. B. Hooe.
Q. When did your treatment begin and when did it end? Answer – Began on September 23, 1915
Q. And continued up to what time? Answer – Until November 15, 1915
Q. During that period how often did you have occasion to examine his eyes? Answer – I saw him during that period perhaps every two weeks.
Q. For what did you treat him? Answer – For this condition of his eyes.
Q. What condition of his eyes? Answer – Optic neuritis.
Q. State in the record what you mean by optic neuritis? Answer – Inflammation of the optic nerves.
Q. Could the inflammation of the optic nerve that you mention have been caused by a shock or blow? Answer – Yes.
Mr. Baumgardner: I think that would be objectionable as leading.
Q. What in medical terms do you call the cause of that condition? Answer – The cause or causes?
Q. Yes. Answer – There are a great many causes for this condition. Traumatism is one of them; Acute infectious diseases, inflammation of the nose, and parts contiguous thereto, asre the principal causes.
Q. Explain what you mean by traumatism? Answer – Injury.
Q. Is that an injury as distinguished from a disease? Answer – Yes.
Q. Did he give you any history as to what preceeded this condition of the optic nerve as found by you? Answer – Yes, he said he had been injured on the Southern Railway, February 23, 1915; that following that he had had a bloody discharge from the nose for some time, and that his eyes had felt weak and painful since that time.
Q. at your last treatment of him on November 15th was he well. Answer – He had improved but he was not well.
Q. How does this condition that you found and for which you treated him affect the vision? Answer – It reduces the acuteness of vision and limits the visual field.
Q. Has it any other features that are distressing or anything? Answer – There is sometimes pain connected with it. It differs very greatly in different cases; and inability to use the eyes, particulary for near work, or to any extent without discomfort.
Q. Doctor, is this condition that you found usually or apt to be accompanied by headaches? Answer – I do not think so as a direct result of the inflammation in the optic nerve itself, but as a concomitant result of the injury.
Mr. Mackey: That is all.
Mr. McCandlish: I wish to reserve the right to cross examine this witness at some other time
after the depositions have been written up and read over.
(Signed Wm. T. Davis)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of March, A. D. 1916
(Signed) Wm. H. Holloway,
Notary Public, D.C.
“In the Circuit Court for the County of Prince William.
William J. Sullivan, plaintiff vs Southern Railway Company, et al, Defendants.
The depositions of Dr. Tom A. Williams taken pursuant to the annexed notice, on Saturday, March 25, 1916, at 2:30 o’clock P. M., at No. 1624 I (eye) Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C., to be read as evidence in the above entitled cause:
Present: Messrs. Crandal Mackey and Thomas H. Patterson, attorneys for plaintiff.
Mr. M. Carter Hall, attorney for defendant Southern Railway Company.
Mr. William H. Holloway, Notary Public.
The stenographer and witness.
Dr. Tom A. Williams, a witness of lawful age, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. Mackey:
Q. State your name, age, residence and occupation? Answer – Dr. Tom A. Williams; age forty six; 17o5 N Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C.; physician, specialist in nervous diseases.
Q. When and where did you graduate in medicine? Answer – In 1896, Edinburg University in Scotland.
Q. In what did you graduate? Answer – Surgery, medicine and midwifery.
Q. Have you practiced medicine and surgery ever since that time? Answer – I practiced until 1904, and then I began the study of neurology and practiced that since; at least, I practiced that since 1907, I was studying before that.
Q. will you state in the record what the science of neurology embraces? Answer – It embraces the structure and functions and disorders of the nervous system, and the brain, spinal cord, nerves, muscles and glands.
Q. state what if any special study you have given to that subject? Answer – I studied in Chicago, Boston first, and then I studied in Paris two years and a half, London with very distinguished teachers, and various clinics such as the London Hospital, Sal Petriere, Hotel Dieu in Paris, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Cook County Institute.
Mr. Hall: I wish the record to show that the notice upon which service was accepted gave the
name of Dr. W. T. Davis, and also said “and others”, and we were not advised specially that the deposition of Dr. Williams was to be taken at this time. I must say it is a surprise to me to have this deposition taken. I realize the importance of Dr. Williams’ testimony and would like to reserve the right if necessary, to cross examine him at some other time.
Dr. Williams: I will be very glad.
By Mr. Mackey:
Q. Doctor, does your study of diseases of the nervous system and the science of neurology embrace the condition commonly known as epilepsy? Answer – Yes, I am a member of the National Association for the study of Epilepsy in the United States, and have read papers before them.
Q. Do you know a man named William J. Sullivan who claims to have been injured by a wreck on the Southern Railway while he was a passenger in Prince William County, Virginia, on February 23, 1915? Answer – I know a man named William J. Sullivan who was referred to me for preliminary examination on October 5th 1915, by Dr. A. B. Hooe. He said he had an accident in Virginia on the railway. I was asked to make an examination which I did after obtaining a history of the patient. I did not note the history of the accident because I presumed that was being done by others who were more competent to go into that matter than I, but I was particular in obtaining as exact a history of the facts as the patient could give it, and if you wish I will read it. I wished to find out if Mr. Sullivan had syphilis or not, and I arranged with the surgeon of the Southern Railway to conduct certain examinations, for which the Southern Railway remunerated me, and it was found that he had not syphilis. The blood tests were made and the spinal fluid taken and tested and found normal. The spinal fluid is almost never normal in a case of syphilis of that kind, although the blood tests may be in a considerable number of cases quite normal.
Q. Do you mean that you drew the spinal fluid? Answer – Yes, I drew spinal fluid from this man and it was examined in order to find out if he had syphilis or not, that was the purpose of doing it. I recommended a treatment which I have found useful in certain cases, namely a modification of the diet to limit the amount of proteins, that is food of the meat order, and an increase of the succulent foods such as vegetables, hoping it might benefit him, and prescribing baths. He found it too expensive to take them. He did not come back to me again, saying he had gone to the country to improve and would see me later. He made arrangements to take the baths but did not do so because he did not have enough money. While he took the diet there was no improvement, but it was worth trying. These are the main facts as well as I remember them at the moment. There are a great many other points that might be brought out by questioning.
Q. Doctor, state whether in your opinion this condition of bleeding at the nose, epileptic spasms and inflammation of the optic nerve, would indicate a fracture at the base of the brain? Answer – Not necessarily.
Q. Did your examination reveal whether or not there was a fracture at the base of the brain? Answer – It is not possible to find out that so long after the injury even with the X-Ray. There may have been a fracture which one could not detect, and then there may not have been. Such as a split fracture healed up.
Q. It is, or is it not a fact that epileptic convulsions due to what you have called traumatism from any cause, would be likely to increase as time goes by and the patient gets older. Answer – They generally do.
Q. Do you mean by that that the convulsion would occur more frequently? Answer – More frequently and sometimes they last longer.
Q. In these convulsions, what if any danger is there from the patient injuring himself? Answer – Not very much, unless he falls into a fire or falls in front of a vehicle, they fall down and bruise their heads and bark their elbows and cut their faces, but very seldom injure themselves seriously. If they fall against a projecting knob or a pavement they might fracture their skulls. In most epileptics there is a short period before the fall and the patient can get to a chair or get down on the floor. In institutions where they keep epileptics they do not pay any attention to the fall. They know they are going to fall and they go to a place where they can fall easily.
By Mr. Hall
Q. Doctor, I believe you said that in examining Mr. Sullivan you have not gone into the history of the accident at all. Answer – I said I did not note it because I thought it was noted by others. I said he told me certain facts about the accident but I did not note them.
Q. Is it not true that the history of the accident would be of considerable importance? Answer – It was to me at the time. I based my conclusions partly upon the history of the case at the time, but I did not take notes of what happened. I do not remember it now.
Q. And your opinion, as I understand it, is based on the patient’s history to a very large extent, in conjunction with the findings of the eye by Dr. Davis, and the appearance of the face, the congestion of his face. Answer – Yes. sir.
Q. Do you or anyone else know what the real causes of epilepsy are? Answer – We know some of them.
Q. That is, the active or inciting causes? Answer – We know of some of the things. We do mot know how they do it; we know that they do; syphilis in certain instances, traumatism, metabolism, disorders, tumor of the brain, defects and deformities of the brain which are hereditary. In those cases where we get it in younger people.
Q. Alcoholism? Answer – Alcoholism is said to be a cause, chronic alcoholism.
Q. People are frequently predisposed to epilepsy? Answer – The alcoholic epileptic gets well when the alcohol is taken away.
Q. Would not that produce epilepsy? Answer – In certain individuals it produces epilepsy.
Q. Did Mr. Sullivan complain to you of loss of memory or something of that sort? Answer – I did not note it.
Q. He did not complain to you of uncertainty of the mind, confusion of the mind, loss of mental power? Answer – I am sorry to say that I do not know. I have not noted it.
Q. Would it make any difference in your opinion, doctor, if he had related one history to you and an entirely different history to another specialist. Answer – Not that my diagnosis would differ, but my opinion of his character would.
Q. And then it might change your diagnosis? Answer – I do not know until I heard it.
Q. Did he complain to you of any pain in his head? Answer – That I do not remember.
Q. And you do not remember whether he complained of confusion of mind? Answer – I have not noted it.
Q. Did he complain of vertigo? Answer – I do not think he did. I have read all I had of the notes.
Q. You have not seen him but once or twice? Answer – I do not know here. I could find out from my book. I have seen him, here I have noted, four times. Three times (counting).
Q. What time was that? Answer – In October and November 1915. There were four times.
Q. And you have not noted by personal observation his condition since November, 1915? Answer – I would not say that. I may have seen him in December but I have not seen him for some months.
Q. Do you know where he is now? Answer – I have no idea.
Q. When was it he told you he was going to the country? Answer – November 8th of this year. I made the arrangements to take the baths and I have not seen him since then.
Q. I was much interested in a case cited by you in your article published in the Pacific Medical Journal --- Answer – What is it called?
Q. “Epilepsy in young adults and adolescents, with reference to a new treatment based upon patho genesis.” Answer – It was first published in another paper. Review of Neurology and Psychiatry of Edenburg and also in the proceedings of the International epileptic Association.
Q. The case of a man of twenty-four referred to you by Dr. Thomas Martin, September, 1911, on account of convulsions, and you treated him for epilepsy. Do you recall the case? Answer – Very well.
Q. And he had what you characterized as true epileptic convulsions? Answer – As well as I remember.
Q. didn’t I understand you also to say that he did not have attacks in his sleep? Answer – No, sir, I was speaking of nosebleeds.