WHAT THEA SAID. ; form bones were broken and injured and the ' soft parts mashed into a pulp and the arteries and nerves injured. In answer co | a question by Judge Dirlam, he said: "Well, if I saw it just | as it'is there I would make an amputation." He said he had seen the flap soon after the injury and on being shown the plaintiff's | f joc and ankle said the flap had largely sloughed off and was still an open sore. Dr. W. E. Loughridge was examined and in direct answer to a question as to what he would have done judging from the foot as presented to him at the trial said: "I would have tried to have saved the foot." As to the injury he said there was some crush on j the top part of the foot, no apparent crush to | the metatarsal b nes and no bits of bone broken from the tarsal bones. On cross ex- amination judging from the foot as present- ed to him he said "I would have taken off the little toe and probably the one next to ic, the metatarsal bones, and the corresponding toes. , 1 might since seeing the fracture in the next | one, amputate that also." Again he said, "if I had known a train had passed over it, (the foot), I would have cut the foot off." The injury being described to Dr. D.V. Ire- land, Homeopath, he said: "It would delay the process of repair,but would not necessarily call for amputation." He said he found no special I injury to the tissues on the bottom of the foot. He said he found none of the osseous tissues crushed at all. He stated that he had had little experience in railroad surgery and that he had helped once to amputate a foot that was crushed by the cars Dr. A. E. Keyes, homeopath, testified that J the third, fourth and fifth metatarsal bones I were fractured. Thought the third was crushed. Baid he woul i have amputated the third, fourth and fifth metatarsal bones and tried to save the rest of the foot. On cross examination said the cuboid bone bad the appearance of being pulled off and that the internal cuneiform bone was broken. The cartilage was pulled off and that was a serious injury. He said, "If I had found that the foot was cold and the watery part of the bl >od was oozing I out it would indicate that the circulation was cut off and there would then be no doubt about amputating." Dr. A. V. Patterson said in direct examin- ation. "Myopinion was that the inner part of j the foot might be saved " Providing the in- | ner plantar artery was intact, he would have 1 removed the third,fourth and fifth metatarsal bones, all that were fractured. He thought the simple fracture of the third and fourth metatarsal bones would not render the am- putation necessary. On cross examination Judge Dirlam showed him some crushed bones which he had not seen before. Dr. Patterson was originally of the belief that the car wheel did not pass over the foot at right angles with its length. He came very near admitting that however, on cross examination. He stated that his own theory of the injury was first suggested when he, Col. S. E Fink and W. 8. Kerr were together shortly after the origin al petition had been filed in court. He said also that when he said he thought the foot could have been saved, he was basing his judgment on the theory that the circulation was still in the injured part. For the defense following is a synopsis of the testimony offered: Dr. J. W. Craig said the foot was crushed across the instep and chat the second, third, fourth and fifth meta- tarsal bones were crus led as were also the cuboid, middle cuneiform, internal cunei- form and scaphoid bones. The cartilege was denuded from the end of the external cunei- form bones, nerves and arteries destroyed, the foot cold and practically lifeless and the circulation suspended. Nothing short of the amputation made was either advisable or good surgery. Dr. J. H. Craig testified to practically the same statements. Dr. R. Harvey Reed testified to substan- tially the same, emphas'zing that the soft parts were mashed to a pulp and devitalized beyond hope of recovery. He swore that amputation was the only remedy under the circumstances. Dr. W. H. Race testified that after exam- ining the foot he considered amputation the proper thing. He said injuries of this kind were not only dangerous to life but that the parts themselves seldom got well, and if that did happen were of little service. Dr. J. W. Hamilton, of Columbus, said the foot should have been amputated promptly, and when asked the advisability of leaving the great toe on the foot, said he thought the victim of the accident would himself seek a further amputation even should it heal properly as he considered that toe alone a hindrance to locomotion. Dr. F C. Larimore, of Mt. Vernon, said amputation was the proper thing. Dr. Proctor Thayer, of Cleveland, was very decided in his statement that amputa- tion was necessary. He added that the more promptly it was done in this case, the better. He considered the leaving on of a foot in that condition as dangerous to life. Dr. J. P. Cowan, of Ashland, testified to the same effect. Dr. P. H. Clark, of Ashland, said amputa- tion was a necessity in this case and con- demned the operation of leaving the great toe alone. Dr. Solon Marks, surgeon-in-chief of the C. M. & St. P. railroad, after carefully ex- amining the injured foot and comparing it with the marks on the shoe, frankly testified that the operation was a proper one and all that could have been done under the circumstances. He consider- ed the "Key" operation leaving only the great toe as altogether impracticable. SYNOPSIS OF THE TESTIMONY IN THE PATTON MALPRACTICE CASE. A Few of the Statements of Opinion on Which the Jury Based its Verdict- Home Doctors and Foreign Experts Talk About Patton's Foot. [Reprintfrom the Sunday Dally News of June 5th, 1887. J The Patton malpractice ease against Dr. R. Harvey Reed and Dr. J. W Craig, of this city, was closed yesterday, the verdict being for the defenda, ts. There has not been as interesting a case ip a number of years and the court room was crowded nearly every day of the trial. The inte est was increased by the open secret that Dr. Reed has charged that Dr. Erwin, a professional enemy, who I was actuated by malice toward him. was the I instigator of the whole trouble and Lad he gone on the stand proposed to prove it to the i jury. Tne physician however, was not put | on the stand and nothing in regard to his al- leged connection was brought out in the trial. Joseph Patton was injured October 22, 1885. His left leg was amputated by Dr. | Reed. The right foot had been run over by | the cars. The wheel, according to the testi- j mony, passed over the foot at right angles to its length. The foot was amputa- ted next to the ankle by Dr. Craig, Dr. Reed assisting. The operation is what is known as Chopar-'s operation. The plaintiff and j his family claim to have protested against | the operation being made so higu up and thought a large part of the foot, especially the great toe, might have been saved. In a few days Dr. Reed was given notice to discontinue his services and Dr. Erwin was put in charge of the case. Shortly after, a suit was bi ought against the physicians for #20,000 damages. The testimony showed that the foot had been preserved in alcohol and shown by the attorneys to Drs. Mitchell, Pat- terson, Loughridge, Keyes and Ireland and that a kind of council was held ever it at which Drs. Mitchell, Patterson and Lough- ridge were present Dr. McCullough pre- served the foot and the defendants had no access to it. Following is a synopsis of the testimony of the physicians summoned for I tne plaintiff; Dr. Mitchell testified that the second, third, fourth and fifth metatarsal bones were in- jured and that all he would have done would have been to remove the fifth metatarsal bone, and that the amputation as made was improper. On cross examination he testified that the little toe was crushed and that there was a rent between the first and second metatarsal bones, the head of the fifth meta- tarsal bone, the cuboi * and the middle cunei-