Physicians and Surgeons—Malpractice—Verdict Supported by Evidence.—In this action by a physician for services, a verdict for damages in a cross-action for malpractice was held to be not without substantial support in the evidence.

Id.—Evidence—Expert Testimony—Hypothetical Question—Facts not Included.—Considerable latitude must be allowed in the choice of facts as the basis of hypothetical,questions, and if the question is fair and understandable by the witness it is not to be excluded because it does not comprehend all the important facts in the ease.

Id.—Form op Objection.—One desiring to insist on the objection to a hypothetical question that it fails to include essential facts should specify the facts which ought to have been included.

Id.—Bes Gestae—• Statements op Attending Physicians — Declarations.—Statements of the attending physicians at the time of the treatment are admissible as part of the res gestae, and may be included in a hypothetical question, but declarations that were no part of the treatment should be left out, as they are incompetent.

Id.—Cross-examination — Prejudicial Statement by Counsel. — Where in a cross-action for malpractice against a physician, one of Ms witnesses, a member of a county medical association, was asked whether the cross-complainant was not a member of the same association, the statement of counsel in reply to inquiry by the court that the purpose of the question was to show whether or not “the association protects any member in litigation brought against him in a case of the present character,” was likely to be prejudicial.

Id.—Illustrating Testimony — Human Skeleton.—Refusal by the court to allow the appellant physician to illustrate his testimony by reference to a human skeleton violated no legal right, the matter being left to the sound discretion of the court, which was not abused by the refusal.

Id.—Instructions—Degree of Skill and Learning Required.—A requested instruction to the effect that whether the defendant physician was negligent in his treatment of the patient was to be determined by finding whether or not he possessed and used that degree of skill and learning possessed and used by physicians of the same school practicing in the same or similar localities, lays down a standard clearly established by the authorities, and might well have been given by the trial court.-

Id.—Instruction Properly Refused.—The court properly refused to instruct the jury to the effect that, as to whether the physician in breaking up certain adhesions in the knees of t'he patient exercised ordinary care and skill in his method and in the amount of force used therefor, were questions that the jury must look solely to the testimony of the medical and surgical witnesses to determine.

iId.—Action for Physician’s Compensation—Cross-action for Malpractice-Instruction Improperly Refused.—In this action for a physician’s services, and for room, board and nurse hire, in which the defendant brought a cross-action for malpractice, the two actions having been tried together, and the second action treated as a cross-complaint, the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the complainant physician was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the use of "the room and of board and nurse hire, regardless of the question whether he exercised ordinary care and skill in the treatment of the patient.

,Id.—Erroneous Instruction.—The trial court erred in instructing the jury in such case to the effect that it was not necessary for the defendant and cross-complainant to prove gross culpability on the part -of the plaintiff, but proof of any failure to exercise proper care on the part of the plaintiff, or any carelessness or negligence in the discharge of the duty assumed by plaintiff, was sufficient to enable the defendant and cross-complainant to recover in this action, if the jury believed from a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was unskillful or careless or negligent, and that the cross-complainant was injured thereby.