An Eye Case in the Courts: 
BY 
C. A. ROBERTSON, A. M. (Harvard), M. IX, 
Fellow of the Massachusetts Medical Society, Member of the American Ophthalmological Society, 
Delegate to the Medical Society of the State of New York. Ophthalmic and Aural 
Surgeon at St. Peter's Hospital, Albany, and at the 
Troy and Cohoes Hospitals. 
“No Pleasure is Comparable to the Standing upon the Vantage Ground of 
Truth.”— Bacon. 
ALBANY: 
THE ARGUS COMPANY, PRINTERS. 
1873. ' 
Compliments of 
DR. R ODER TS 0 K An Eye Case in the Courts: 
BY 
C. A. ROBERTSON, A. M. (Harvard), M. D., 
Fellow of the Massachusetts Medical Society, Member of the American Ojrhthalmological Society, 
Delegate to the Medical Society of the State of New York. Ophthalmic and Aural 
Surgeon at St. Peter's Hospital, Albany, and at the 
Troy and Cohoes Hospitals. 
“No Pleasure: is Comparable to the Standing upon the Vantage Ground op 
Truth.”—Bacon. 
ALBANY: 
THE ARGUS COMPANY, PRINTERS. 
1873. AN EYE CASE IN THE COURTS. 
John C. Tinney agt. The New Jersey Steamboat Company. 
The following is one of a series of cases in practice 
contained in a paper presented to the New York 
State Medical Society at the last meeting, February, 
1873, and it is one that has become somewhat noted 
in law as the case of .John C. Tinney against the New 
Jersey Steamboat Company. The action was commenced 
by plaintiff for alleged damages in the sum of $15,000 
for impairment of sight, the result of alleged injury 
received on the Hudson river steamboat, Dean Richmond. 
Tinney, a man about twenty-eight years old, called to 
consult me the 24th September, 1867, at the instance of 
his family physician, Dr. Witbeck of West Troy. He 
complained of great indistinctness of vision, which he 
referred to an injury on the brow done by a slat of a 
steamboat berth, breaking under the weight of an occu- 
pant above him, as the boat struck the pier forcibly 
when arriving at Albany on the morning of April 21st, 
ult. The broken extremity, he said, struck him over 
the left eye and held him impaled until the person above 
him got out of his berth. He said that the wound bled, 
and blood settled all around the eye and the lids were 
afterward swollen shut, but that the eyeball itself was 
not struck. At the time of consulting me, he said that 4 
he could not distinguish a person’s features a yard off 
so as to recognize the person when the right eye was 
closed ; and could only count the number of fingers held 
up before him. 
On inspection I saw a small linear scar over the inner 
extremity of the eyebrow. This scar was a white 
cicatrix and clearly an old affair. No signs of recent 
injury existed. The ophthalmoscope revealed a degree 
of congenital hypermetropia, but no morbid products. 
The action of the pupil was normal and the tension of 
the globe also. 
As the patient did not develop an ulterior purpose 
in consulting me, I did not suspect any deception in his 
statements relative to inability to see well, and I inti- 
mated to him that his impairment of vision, the degree 
of which I did not seek to accurately determine, might 
have been caused by an injury done to a branch of one 
of the fifth pair of nerves. He seemed very curious as 
to this opinion, and asked a good many questions regard- 
ing it. 
I suggested that time might remedy his hurt, but 
doubted the efficacy of any treatment. Two months 
afterward, he came again to see me. and then informed 
me that he intended to bring an action at law for 
damages, and I was subsequently served with a subpoena 
to appear as a medical witness. I then felt a misgiving 
as to his credibility, and requested him not to subpoena 
me for reasons that I stated. He remarked that I had 
referred to the case of Hr. C., when he first consulted me, 
who was thrown from his carriage, striking violently on 
his head, the sight becoming impaired by consequence, 5 
although the eye was not struck ; and that neither I nor 
subsequently another oculist, Dr. Hinton of New York, 
could detect anything wrong in the eye ; and that this 
was too like his own case, and too important for his 
benefit, not to be brought before the jury. Therefore, he 
insisted upon summoning me as a witness. 
The case was not reached on the calendar until 
another term of the court, when I was again subpoenaed. 
At this time, when Tinney called to summon me, I 
affected sufficient interest in his case to secure an oppor- 
tunity to satisfy my mind as to the correctness of my 
that lie could really see better than he pre- 
tended. The ophthalmoscope revealed nothing more than 
at first. I tried various experiments with prisms, lenses, 
test-type and test-objects, and I found his answers to my 
questions conflicting; but the experiment with a stereo- 
scope settled the question of his falseness beyond a per 
adventure. 
Upon a card prepared for the purpose, I had pasted, 
at the proper distance apart, these characters: 
CENTS 
12 1-2 
(= No. 7 of Snellen’s test-type), cut from a newspaper- 
heading. Now, the action of light upon the glasses, or 
prisms of the stereoscope produces an optical illusion, 
so that what is seen by the right eye appears to be on 
the left side, and vice versa, and the separatrix between 
the prisms prevents either eye from seeing what is before 
the other. Accordingly, an apparent transformation of 
the characters above mentioned would be effected to the 
eyes of an ordinary observer, and he would read it 
twelve and a half cents. I carefully placed the stereoscope, with the card ad- 
justed in front of the prisms, before the eyes of Tinney 
for a moment, telling him not to wink. On its removal, 
I asked him what he saw. He promptly replied that he 
saw “twelve and a half cents.” I said, “ that is right,” 
and placed the instrument on my desk, when he added, 
“the figures were blurred, but I could see they were fig- 
ures.” Unfortunately for the victim of this optical illu- 
sion, the figures, which he said seemed blurred, were in 
front of his well eye (the right), although apjmrently on 
the left of the word cents, and could be seen only by the 
well eye ; while the word cents, respecting which he 
complaint as lacking in distinctness, was in front of his 
alleged bad eye (the left), and could be seen only by the 
left eye! The fair inference from his remark as to the 
blurring was that the sight of his damaged eye was bet- 
ter than that of the sound one ! 
Before the trial the attorneys, both for the plaintiff 
and for the defendant, called on me. The latter stated 
that he had made an offer to Tinney to compensate him 
for any injury he had received, if he would have the 
degree of impairment of sight resulting from the injury 
determined by the examination of some fair and compe- 
tent oculist; but the offer was rejected by the advice of 
counsel. He continued, that he had heard that I was 
subpoenaed by Tinney, and desired to ascertain my rela- 
tion to the case. I told him that I was averse to appear- 
ing in court at all in the matter; that I was indifferent 
as to the parties at issue, and would not appear as a par- 
tisan, but simply as a scientific witness. Thereupon he 
expressed his satisfaction and left. 7 
The attorney and counsel for the plaintiff asked me, 
at their interview, if I could tell by examination and 
experiment with glasses the condition of the sight, to 
which I replied affirmatively. They made no allusion 
to my examination of their client, and experiments with 
glasses to determine the condition of his sight. But 
they omitted to call me on the witness stand, at the 
trial, although they had subpoenaed me ! 
I was, however, called on the stand by the attorney 
for the defense, and I stated various methods of exam- 
ination which I had employed with prisms, test-type and 
other objects. I explained the crucial test which I had 
made, and exhibited the stereoscope and card. 
Tinney himself appeared as a witness, and the facts 
were established, that he had suffered from granular lids, 
and his father before him, and both had undergone 
medical treatment for the disease. 
His family physician, Dr. Witbeck, testified in the 
case, but neither the latter, nor Tinney himself, spoke of 
any violence except on the brow. The doctor’s treat- 
ment was directed solely to the bruise there and to the 
accompanying tumefaction and ecchymosis about the lids. 
Daniel Webster is said to have expressed an irreverent 
doubt if divine intelligence could forecast what verdict a 
jury would render ; and in this case the jury, regardless 
of scientific and indubitable proof to the contrary, 
awarded the plaintiff damages in the sum of $5,000 for 
injury done to his sight; and this, too, upon the uncor- 
roborated statement of the interested party himself, who 
wanted $15,000. 
The case, however, was carried up on appeal to the 8 
General Term of the Supreme Court. Hon. John H. 
Reynolds argued it before the full bench, and explained 
the experiment by which the plaintiff’s vision had been 
tested, and exhibited the stereoscope and card to the 
judges, who verified the experiment. The case was sent 
back by the court for new trial at the Circuit on the 
ground of excessive damages. 
The new trial took place May 22d, 1872, nearly five 
years after my examination of the eye. 
The novel feature of this trial was the testimony of 
Dr. George T. Stevens, who appeared as a witness for 
the plaintiff. This witness stated that he was a professor 
at the Albany Medical College, and asserted that he had 
examined the plaintiff’s eye on the 20th of March, 1872, 
and found that with the left eye he read No. 8, Snellen’s 
test-type, at twelve inches, “without a glass;” thus 
indicating one-eiglitli (-§-) of perfect vision. He testified 
that with TV convex glass the plaintiff read Nos. 6, 8 and 
10, which is tantamount to saying that he saw a larger 
object (No. 10) with a magnifying glass than he saw 
without one, and also that he saw one a little smaller, 
too! The witness further deposed that he next tried 
prisms before the patient’s eyes, in order “to satisfy” 
himself, and from the patient’s answers he was satisfied 
that there was “a defect of vision in the left eye.” He 
asserted that “a person not an expert could not judge” 
which image was seen through the prism and which by 
the naked eye, and he expressed a “doubt whether an 
expert could.” Any intelligent person, however, may 
readily satisfy himself how entirely unwarranted such an 
assertion is, by looking steadily at an object, and then 9 
interposing a prism before one of his eyes, for he will 
instantaneously recognize the utter fallaciousnes of the 
experiment as a conclusive test of deception, and per- 
ceive how easily, by means of it, a practiced malingerer, 
hungry for money, could impose on an inexperienced 
examiner. In this case, the plaintiff had enjoyed a favora- 
ble opportunity to become familiar with the action of 
prisms, for his attorney had borrowed of me, and kept for 
several weeks, the stereoscope exhibited at thefirst trial. 
Next, the deponent said he “ used a diagram used by 
oculists,” “made in the form of a wheel with spokes,” 
the spokes “composed of three distinct lines.”* (The 
diagram referred to was undoubtedly one of the astig- 
maticf tests of my friend, Dr. John Green of St. Louis, 
proposed to the American Ophthalmological Society at 
our session at Niagara Falls in 18G7. The three lines of 
the spokes correspond in width to No. 20 of Snellen’s 
test-types. These tests, photographed on glass, were 
well shown to the State Society last year, with a magic lan- 
tern, by our accomplished confrere, Dr. Noyes of New 
York.) Witness testified that at a distance of twenty 
feet, Tinney “ could not make out anything” with the 
left eye. He then “brought it within six feet and he 
(plaintiff) said he could see certain lines better than cer- 
* Note.—The quotations of testimony in this case are copied from the 
court reporter’s stenographic minutes. 
f Definition.—For the general reader, it may be stated that when the eye 
is misshapen in front, so that rays of light falling on it are not brought 
to a common focal point within the eye-ball, then the eye is said to be focus- 
less, or astigmatic. The properly shaped cornea, or front of the eye, is almost 
uniformly curved (for example, like the end of an egg), while the astigmatic 
eye may have curvatures that differ as the curves on the side of an egg, that 
is those on its long diameter from those on the short diameter. 10 
tain other lines.” Now if the vague word “within” was 
used, as it seems to be, with the import of the phrase in 
the neighborhood of, then it would seem that the left eye 
had visual power equal to about i. e., about \ of per- 
fect vision in certain meridians. As his previous experi- 
ments with test-type had demonstrated that the unaided 
left eye possessed only of perfect vision in all meri- 
dians, then was the visual power in the most faulty 
meridian, and the difference between and (about) i. 
e., £ represents the degree of astigmatism which must 
have existed according to this witness. 
The witness said lie further proceeded as follows: 
“ directing him to look downward as much as possible 
and bringing these lines a little nearer, 1 found he could 
see the lines a little better.” It would have been more 
remarkable, if he had not seen them better when brought 
nearer ; but how Dr. Stevens anticipated at this stage of 
his investigation that plaintiff' could see better by look- 
ing “ downward as much as possible,” when it was not 
till afterward that he detected a condition in the eye (as 
he goes on to declare), the discovery of which would have 
been likely to prompt him to direct his patient to look 
downward, is passing strange ! Witness went on next to 
explain how he subsequently acquired the information 
which he had previously made use of. It seems like the 
goose hatching the gosling, and afterwards laying the egg 
which produced it! For he says that, by means of the 
ophthalmoscope, he afterwards found that he could see 
well through the upper part of the cornea when patient 
was looking downwards. I prefer to quote the exact 
language, in order to do no injustice to this testimony, 11 
which was apparently dovetailed for the occasion, and, 
however crude it may seem to the scientific mind, doubt- 
less had a value in the opinion of the “professor.” 
With the aid of the ophthalmoscope, as he testified, he 
“found the retina devoid of any indications of dis- 
ease ;” “ could see the upper and loioer borders of the 
disc were less distinct than the borders upon each 
side;” uthe small horizontal vessels could be seen by 
effort“ causing plaintiff to loolc forward, throwing 
this beam of light (/. e., from the ophthalmoscope) through 
the loioer part of the corneaI found the image of the 
retina was extremely indistinct avid greatly distorted ; 
everything about the retina was extremely indistinct and 
greatly distorted; everything about the retina seemed, 
to be distorted and irregular; it was difficult to make 
out anything distintly;” “causing him to look doion, 
and throwing the beam through the upper part of the 
cornea, there was more distinctness ; I could make out 
everything quite clear in the interior of the eye then ; I 
could see that the horizontal vessels existed then, and 
ivere as clear as the others” Here transpires the antici- 
pated reason for directing the plaintiff to look down- 
ward, which was noted above as remarkable ! But the 
law of visible direction did not seem to be known to this 
expert witness, according to which all objects are seen in 
the lines of direction that intersect at the optical center 
of the eye, whether the eye is turned upward or down- 
ward in looking directly at an object; and it did not 
seem to be known by him that the cornea is not a “peri- 
scopic” glass, and that no one can elect to look directly 
through the upper or the lower part of his cornea at will. 12 
It follows, therefore, that it could not be true that the 
direction in which the eyes were turned improved the 
sight of the plaintiff in looking at the three lines. 
In reply to the questions, “have you stated all your 
tests?” and, “what was your conclusion?” deponent 
answered “that there was irregularity of the curvature 
of the cornea, more especially of the lower portion ; the 
upper portion is not free entirely, but comparatively 
free from this curvature; the lower portion is entirely 
distorted.” “The effect upon the sight would be to ren- 
der all images indistinctf “The disease was astigma- 
tism. 5 ’ “ Astigmatism may be natural or may be 
acquired ; regular astigmatisms are natural; an irregu- 
lar astigmatism is usually acquired; this was an 
irregular astigmatism.” Further on the witness re- 
sponded “yes” to the question, “I understood }7ou that 
this irregular astigmatism is almost invariably 
caused by inflammation f” He also answered 4 ‘ yes ’ ’ 
to the question, “and that inflammation may arise from 
an accident ? ’ ’ 
Prof. Donders says “astigmatism is either congenital 
or acquired ; in the great majority of cases it is congeni- 
tal.” (See Sydenham Society, vol. xxii, p. 511.) Also, 
irregular astigmatism may be divided into normal and 
abnormal. The normal form is connected with the 
structure of the lens ; the cornea does not participate in 
producing it.” (P. 543.) Abnormal astigmatism refers 
to the degree of the defect interfering with perfect vision, 
for a slight degree of astigmatism is the common, or nor- 
mal condition of all eyes. In every forty or titty cases, 
without exaggeration, one is, in consequence of astigma- 13 
tism, disturbed in its function. Now in a disagreement 
between the eminent Utrecht authority, just quoted, and 
Dr. Stevens, involving the relative frequency of acquired 
astigmatism, and the way in which it is “ almost inva- 
riably causedthe latter would be an imponderable. 
The case, without other medical testimony than already 
mentioned, was committed to the jury. The result was 
another curious exemplification of the impossibility of 
divining the judgment of a jury. No verdict was ren- 
dered, the jury disagreeing on the point of the company 
being responsible for an accident, against which, it was 
contended, all care and diligence had been exercised. 
Consequently a third trial was made necessary. 
During the last session of the State Medical Society, 
the third trial was going on, and this paper has since 
been completed. 
Fresh interest was added to the case by the appear- 
ance of Dr. Agnew, the president of the Society. 
It was clear that the plaintiff and his counsel, with or 
without some new conditions of the eye, had recovered 
from the original aversion to examination of the eye by 
oculists ! 
Dr. Agnew testified that he examined the eye, “three 
or four weeks ago, in the way we usually do when we 
desire to find out if an eye is healthy or not.” The wit- 
ness did not state it, but it is competent to mention, that 
we usually assume in private practice that our patients 
do not intend to impose upon us, otherwise we should 
properly resort to unusual ways to detect the imposi- 
tion. 
He found a “ small, faint spot ” on the cornea “ which 14 
was in such a position as to interfere with sight.” This 
was a new feature in the case. 
He tried various kinds of spectacles, but only got vision 
of one-tenth. The doctor explained the manner in which 
the degree of vision is notated by means of test-type. 
To the question, “did you satisfy yourself the sight 
was impaired without taking his statement ? ” the answer 
was given, “I did not take his statement; we have means 
of determining without taking their statements, when the 
vision of one eye is perfect.” Unfortunately, the ques- 
tion was not asked, what means were employed in this 
case, and — another very important matter — what degree 
of illumination was used, and the witness did not state. 
In the instance of an expert impostor, which was the 
issue raised in this case, all the means actually employed 
and the precautions against imposition, would have inter- 
est and permanent importance. 
The witness proceeded to state that in his opinion “ the 
in jury [spot ?] was permanent.” The question followed : 
“Is there any irregularity except the spot?” which was 
answered: “that would account for the irregularity.” 
The doctor said that such a defect could be caused by 
inflammation of the eye. The attorney for plaintiff then 
proposed a hypothetical case of an exaggerated character, 
which was not in nature or degree like Tinney’s case, as 
stated to me by himself or Dr. Witbeck, his physician ; 
and then asked if such an inflammation of the eye, as 
narrated, could cause a defect like Tinney’s. The witness 
properly and inevitably answered, “ I think so !” 
Upon Ills cross-examination, the witness testified that 
he used a single prism in ascertaining the defect of sight, 15 
and that “ he had to take his statement, of course.” He 
did not use the stereoscope, he said. 
The substance of the further testimony of the witness 
was as follows: “ The chief opacity was a little to the 
nasal side of the centre /” “ it was not easily seen by 
unaided, vision ; ’ ’ “ could not say whether this opacity 
was recent or not f “ it might or might not account for 
any defect; ” [that is of sight ?] “found slight changes 
[nature not stated] in the choroid coat f ’ u also around 
the edge of the nerve some slight changes /” “ the refrac- 
tion of the eye was not perfectly normal; that condition 
I supposed to be congenital; I call that hypermetropia f ’ 
“there was slight astigmatism,” “ corrected partially by 
a particular glass;” “/ found it (the astigmatism) 
regular “ cannot say how much of his defect of vision 
is due to some congenital cause, and how much acquired /” 
“an external injury or blow is not a necessary cause to 
such opacity and such choroidal changes ;” “ might 
exist simply in the natural course of disease of the 
eye ;” “may have no relation to any injury or accident 
that occurred four or five years ago.” 
The testimony of Dr. Agnew was given frankly and 
distinctly, and with the manifest intent of communicating 
what really lay in his own mind. It in no way, however, 
established the least connection between the accident 
alleged to have happened in April, 1867, and the condi- 
tion of things observed by him early in 1873, almost six 
years afterwards, in a patient, once, if not still subject to 
ophthalmia, and possessing a congenital defect of sight, 
which he had only to exaggerate in his representations, 16 
in order to successfully deceive any one who relied upon 
the experiments mentioned by the doctor. 
But my test with the stereoscope, again shown in court, 
was another affair, being made early in the of the 
case, before the plaintiff had reason to believe himself 
suspected of imposture, and had learned the necessity, in 
order to secure $15,000 from the Steamboat Company, of 
some familiarity with refracting glasses, and, 
had found away to produce a “slight cloudiness” upon 
the cornea ; and the infallible test was unaffected by all 
the testimony brought by legal counsel to show that 
their client ought not to see, when the fact stood incon- 
testable that he did see ! It was very like the case of the 
man, who was told by his lawyer, after stating the 
statute, “they cannot put you into the stocks.” “But, 
you see,” he replied, “ I am in the stocks !” 
The jury, after this trial, brought in a verdict in behalf 
of the plaintiff for damages, in the sum of one thousand 
dollars, which was a mere bagatelle, if the jury believed 
that his sight was damaged to the extent that Tinney 
alleged, and was excessive if the defect in vision had “no 
relation to any injury or accident that Occurred four or 
five years before,” and was accorded to plaintiff, in order 
to compensate for loss of time and physicians’ fees when 
he received the bruise. 
Dr. Stevens reappeared at this trial, as a witness for 
plaintiff, and testified that he was a professor in the 
Albany Medical College ; had given attention to diseases 
of the eye, “ more especially for the last three or four 
years f “ never resided in or made any special course 
of study at any eye infirmary.” 17 
He repeated statements made at the former trial; but 
he developed some curious phases of testimony, so sur- 
prising to be found in the utterances of a professed 
teacher and presumably honest man, that the report of 
the medical aspect of this case would be incomplete if 
the testimony were passed over in silence. 
The minutes of the court stenographer contain the 
following questions and remarkable answers, which are 
copied 'verbatim. 
On the cross-examination: 
Question. “ When you examined plaintiff, the principal diffi- 
culty you thought you found was astigmatism ?” 
Answer. u I thought it toas • yes” 
Q. “ Was it regular or irregular ?” 
A. “ It was regular in the upper part, but the two parts were 
not alike.” 
Q. “ Did you call the principal difficidty regular or irregular 
astigmatism ?” 
A. “ Regular astigmatism.” [s«c.] / / 
Q. “ Did you upon the former trial call it regular ?” 
A. “ I presume I did ; I am not able to remember so as to repeat 
my evidence at that time.” ! ! 
Q. “ I will read from the former trial \reads\ ; did you swear 
to that ? ” 
A. “As it is upon the Recorder’s minutes, probably I did; I 
CANNOT REMEMBER.” \sic.~\ ! ! 
What was read by the advocate for the steamboat 
company, was the following from the direct testimony of 
Dr. Stevens, at the former trial, viz. : 
Q. “ Is there a disease well known to the profession as astig- 
matism ?” 
A. “ Yes.” 
Q. “ What is it caused by ?” 
A. “ It may be natural or it may be acquired ; regular astigma- 18 
tisms are natural; and irregular astigmatism is usually acquired / 
THIS WAS AN IRREGURAR ASTIGMATISM.” [s£c.] // 
Q. “ When the lower portion is more irregular than the upper, 
it is irregular astigmatism ?” 
A. “Yes.” 
Statements more absolutely contradictory than these 
could not be made, and the dilemma in which this astute 
expert placed himself could not well be more unfortu- 
nate. He had heard the testimony of Dr. Agnew, that 
plaintiff had “slight insufficiency of refractive power f 
that he “had slight astigmatism” (not the strong degree 
noted above), and that he “found it regular.” The 
cross-examination compelled him either to flatly contra- 
dict Dr. Agnew, or flatly contradict himself on the former 
trial—he chose the latter alternative ! Apparently scent- 
ing the danger that lurked in the question: “was it 
regular or irregular ?” he gave the equivocal answer that 
“ it was regular in the upper part, but the two parts 
were not alike /” To one who understands the matter, 
this is equivalent in absurdity to a sworn assertion that 
an egg was fresh at one end and stale at the other! or 
that a hospital report of cases is honest, and circulated 
without intent to deceive, since all parts are not alike 
untrue! 
Astigmatism is either regular or it is irregular, and can- 
not be both. It is said that the cuttle fish will obscure 
the water about it with dark emissions of its own when 
sorely pressed, and a muddling of regular and irregular 
astigmatism would seem to have been attempted by the 
witness, in order to puzzle the understanding of the court 
by indefiniteness and confusion, unless in sheer compas- 19 
sion it be urged, that the “ professor” was perhaps igno- 
rant of the meaning of irregular astigmatism. But 
whether the perplexity in which he found himself, is to be 
regarded as resulting from lack of knowledge, lack of 
honesty, or an incredible failure of memory, the stern- 
ness of scientific judgment will equally pronounce that 
a witness who presumes to appear in court as a scientific 
expert, is inexcusable for deliberately falsifying the defi- 
nitions of science, in order to free himself from such 
meshes as never can entangle intelligence or honesty. 
Unjustifiable as the nature of the attempt to escape 
was, the baffled witness only multiplied the harassing 
contradictions in which he was complicated by making 
the futile effort. He said on his cross-examination, 
respecting the curvature of the cornea, “ it was regular 
\ 
in the upper party On his direct examination at the 
previous trial, he had said : ‘ ‘ there was irregularity of 
the curvature of the cornea, more especially of the lower 
part; the upper portion is not free entirely, but com- 
paratively free from this curvature,” that is, if the lan- 
guage means anything, the “professor” contradicts him- 
self again, and asserts of the upper part of the cornea 
that it was free entirely, and it was not free entirely of 
irregularity ! A strange assertion for a “professor” to 
make on oath before an ordinary jury, and it must excite 
regret as the mildest emotion of medical judges. The 
witness said he had given lectures on the eye to students 
“ the last three yearsf and had qualified himself by at- 
tending to the eye ‘ ‘ more especially the last three or four- 
years f but such result of learning or teaching (for “ by 
teaching, one,” 5tis said, “may learn to spell”) will not 20 
promote the development of science, while it must reflect 
discredit upon the “professor’s” attainments. 
But the enumeration is not complete of consequences 
no less intellectually absurd than morally deprecable, 
which seem to hound the victim of the unfortunate failure 
to remember (!) what had been his labor to establish at 
the previous trial, viz. : that the plaintiff was suffering 
from irregular astigmatism, a condition of the eye dis- 
tinguished from regular astigmatism by being, he said, 
“ almost invariably caused by inflammation,” which an 
accident, like Tinney’s, might have originated, whereas, 
regular astigmatisms are natural,” by which he means 
congenital, for it is a misfortune of the “professor” not 
to be accurate in what he says. 
Continuing the testimony just quoted, the stenographer 
reports the following language: “In looking through 
the lower part of the cornea, the irregularity seemed 
greater than when looking through the upper part.” The 
recorded testimony, which he did not remember so as to 
repeat, was to the same effect, only more emphatic, viz., 
“through the lower part of the cornea the image was 
exceedingly distorted ; ” “everything * * distorted 
and irregular,” etc. At both trials, he testified not only 
to what he professed to have observed with the ophthal- 
moscope, but he also swore that the plaintiff saw better 
through the upper part of the cornea, where he professed 
to have found what, by a perversion of terms, he called 
regular astigmatism. Yet, after all this, he swore on 
his final cross-examination that the principal defect in 
plaintiff’s eye was regular astigmatism! Then, for- 
sooth, it follows from the testimony of this veracious and scientific expert, that Tinney saw best in that part of 
his eye where the “principal defect” existed ! 
But this absurdity is not the only logical sequence of 
his singular testimony, for he must have seen better also 
because of the existence of the “principal defect,” as 
well as in the seat of it, if it be true that he saw worse in 
the lower part of the cornea because of the existence of 
what was not the “principal defect.” 
But, enough ! The pitiful performance is exhibited — 
the “act, that had no relish of salvation in it,” is done, 
and seen, and judged. Let the kissed book be forgotten, 
and let the curtain drop, lest there be more fantastic 
tricks for it to hide.