Show SUPREME COURT HOSPITAL CASE GASE Holds That Holy Cross is Not a Charitable Institution Therefore Lable Liable LOSES EYESIGHT MAN SUES Courts I Is Reversed i Wi Viii bo 10 I i I 1 The ourt toe today down clown ni ni the judg ot of the tho lewt court COUlt In th case of appellant vs s tie HI Sisters leJ of the holy Cro Cross 1 Hospital aR assocIation amid granted 1 new fhe notion IM Was brought In Iii cou county l to damages In the tho ship lt if for thu tho lut loss ot of eyesIght nl alleged ged to have hao b been n caused 1 by tho treatment lie ho received at the hands ot of the nurses nt at the tho Holy Crol Cress hospital II In Il its decision the Iho hold that the Iho Holy russ hospital is not mint I it charitable loath but Is tulon Ole one for tor pecuniary ary and hence I Is held lable liable for tor tho ot of I its nurses when act acting In ing the scope of their authority was suffering from froni a 81 so eye diseAse nail was placed In the hospital for treatment nt h by the county on JUI 25 1 County Mayo and hl his assIstant PI Dr Odel Ouch attended him ad and called In the services ot of a arm expert After ni alt ot of time the omens mans ee eyes It ItIn was In that ho he should have havo a a wl h applied to his eyes oer every 20 o into ut during the day and night anti tho they 10 so instrUcted the tn in charge ot of the patIent This would have hao required the ot of two tio nurses Not Notwithstanding withstanding the Instructions GItz horen that lie hc hind had only ono one nurse Ild and that hon ho hed his eyes only two or three times each cach da day Be cause rause ot of their In thIs he lost his eyesight The Tho hospital that it lE ha a charitable treated lS as I a charity case caSI nail should not be held lb Ie The Tho lower court Instructed the tho jul jury to 10 return a verdict In favor ot of defendant which WaS vis done An appeal WR then Ihen token taken to tho the supreme court courtIn In the opInion whIch was b by Justice Ind and concurred lii In by Chief Justice McCarty and amid Justice Frick It Is held that shows ehos that the hospItal 1 is c a pecuniary being incorporated Incorporate In the sum sum or of anti having hospitals In various cItes cities In the United States and that It was paId Hl t b by tho Iho county commit for earing tot fOI hence It was liable for the ot of Ill Its For that reason renson it it held that the oer court erred In iu the return t Jn favor pt F c t end Ud In no allowing the j jury ry to 0 determine time the queston question ot of the negI Kenco gence ot of th time The jUdgment Is reversed wih with to 10 grant a 4 now new trIal trial THIS ONE AFFIRMED Al Ait opinion was S handed down b by tho ho supreme court today the tho judg inert of thin lower loer court In the CUe case of oC Raphael against lexander appellant The action was vas braught to recover possession ot of an and title to 1 a strIp of land hand no awo feel cat an and tour four tn In with width b by 10 role mode In length being In a part ot of lot 4 bl block ck I 14 plAt A Salt Lake City sur SUrVeY Te The de defendant had fenced the tho lan hand In with without without out the hue ot of plaintiff and claImed tIre tho ownership ot of I It Tile lower court rendered I a decree In favor ot plaintIff tOl foi the recovery of oC the tho land and quiet lag InK his tithe to It This jUdgment Is now by the supreme couro coure Tle The opinion of time the court wa isaa written by Jus Justie Justice tie tice Frick and concurred In by Chief McCarty cCarty and Justice |