
    Esther Mann, Appellee, v. Henry A. Blair and John M. Roach, Receivers, Appellants.
    Gen. No. 21,013.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Marcus A. Kavanagh, Judge, presiding.
    Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
    Reversed and remanded.
    Opinion filed November 1, 1915.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Esther Mann, plaintiff, against Henry A. Blair and John M. Roach, as receivers of Chicago Railways Company, defendants, to recover for injuries alleged to have been received while a passenger on defendants ’ street car through negligence in its operation. There was a judgment for plaintiff for $3,000, from which defendants appeal.
    The testimony shows that as the car was proceeding along the street there was a burst of flame from the controller, and panic followed, causing injuries to some of the passengers, including plaintiff. The closely contested point concerns the extent of plaintiff’s injuries, with special reference to whether the injury caused her to suffer from epilepsy. The evidence on this point was contradictory.
    On behalf of the defendants, Dr. Krohn basing his opinion on his experience, testified that plaintiff could not have suffered epilepsy as the result of the accident in question, saying, “Fright does not produce epilepsy.” The attorney for plaintiff, after having identified through the witness a book on nervous diseases written by Professor Starr, asked whether Professor Starr did not say in his book that “about one-half of the cases of epilepsy is caused by fright.” Questions to the same import were repeated and so framed as to appear to be statements of what was contained in Starr’s book. Objections were made and overruled and exceptions taken. At the conclusion of the taking of testimony, plaintiff’s attorney exhibited the book to the court and jury and stated, in effect, that he proposed to show by Professor Starr’s book that it was therein stated that epilepsy may be caused by fright.
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Trial, § 125
      
      —when use of books by counsel to contradict expert improper. In the cross-examination of a medical witness who bases his opinion upon his own personal observation, the conduct of counsel in asking, after identifying through the witness a scientific book, whether the author of the book did not state contrary conclusions from that of the witness, such questions being so framed as to appear to be statements of what was contained in the book, and in exhibiting the book to the court and jury and stating that he purposed to show by it that such contrary opinion was stated, constitutes reversible error.
    2. Street railroads, § 140
      
      —when instructions in action against misleading. In an action against a street railroad company to recover for injuries alleged to have been caused plaintiff while a passenger in defendant’s car, an instruction that the jury in weighing the evidence shall take into consideration the fact that certain witnesses were in defendant’s employ is misleading.
    Robert J. Slater and Frank L. Kriete, for appellants; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.
    Jacob Levy, for appellee; Josiah Burnham, of counsel.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
    
   Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.  