Show W WALBERG ALBERG DENI DENIA A NEW TRIAL CLAIMED LOCAL DENTIST DISH CArED HIS JAW JURY DIS DIS' DISAGREED d AGREED WITH HIM HIM Refusal of Trial of-Trial Trial Judge f to Grant N Nc m Trial Completes Vindication ol Ji Painless D I iEr ii 99 rainless Withers 1 I IThe The curtain was rung down on the case of Henry Walberg vs Dr With With- Withers ers better known as Painless Withers Withers With With- ers when Judge Ritchie recently denied denied denied de de- de- de nied the motion of plaintiff for a new trial The case has attracted widespread interest locally and throughout the state because of the prominence of the dentist defendant the seriousness of the charge If proven and the fact there has been much publicity given to the details I Added spice was given to the proceedIngs pro pro- proceedings proceedings pro pro- by the open charge of Dr Withers that the Dental society was more than passively interested in the success df elf the plaintiff The plaintiff charged that he applied applied applied ap ap- ap- ap plied to the Painless Withers Dental Parlors for treatment for an aching tooth during the month of May 1914 and that one of the dentists in the employ of said defendant attended him and he further alleged that as a result of such treatment his jawbone was dislocated and he was permanently permanently permanently perma perma- injured and he placed the amount of his damage at Dr Withers admitted in his answer that the plaintiff was treated by a t in his employ and assumed full responsibility for the results of such treatment treatment but but denied emphatically emphatically emphatically that by reason of said treatment treatment treatment treat treat- ment or by reason of any act of commission or omission on the part J of himself or his that the plaintiffs plaintiff's jaw was dislocated or otherwise Injured to his damage In Inthe Inthe inthe the sum of or any other sum or at all He further alleged that the treatment treatment treatment treat treat- ment given the said Walberg was proper and necessary and did not and could not cause directly or Indirectly a dIslo dislocation of the jaw etc etc At the trial the facts were brought out The plaintiff admitted he ire had hadnot hadnot hadnot not discovered his jaw was dislocated until told so by a physician some sonje weeks after the date of the alleged P malpractice as charged Dr r Ni and Dr Howell attending physic would not swear that the the 1 dislocated jaw at the time t li J taken to the hospital nod hospital norf that treatment which was alleged to been given did produce such a an rc Dr Tripp president and D Dr C secretary of the state d board appeared as expert with for plaintiff and it was during stay on the witness stand that fe ran high but the doctors admitted that the treatment give P Iv the Dr Withers compa company y as S1 test t to was In line Une with the acct Cf teachings of ot modern dentistry dentistry- therefore correct af After hearing the evidence the deliberated but a short time h returned a verdict In favor of defendant Dr Withers and iq this verdict that the plaintiff SO SOto soto to have set aside and a new new granted but Judge Ritchie denied deniM motion Owing to the fact that some was given the case locally many people people formed formed hasty and andl just opinions as to the case we feel It is only due to Jo to Withers to give the his complete vindication as asHir n prominence as the filing of asti e c plaint was given n. n Whether the bitterness bet bete the Painless Withers company the dental board will now belfor for ten or the strife ren renewed wed remain be seen JH Dr Withers charges that his cess In building up the practice In the city In a and Land reducing the price of goodie try to the people Is the caus cause the boards board's bitterness The board on the other hand 1 l always objected to dentists adver Ing and some claim this thia Is the theli t son son for the lack of harmony Jp At any rate further proceed will be watched with fI |