Letters Sent to Edward A. Markley [E.A. Markley], February 27, 1929

20EX POTT SR AND BERRY 60 Park Place Newark, N. J. February 27, 1929. Edward A. Markley, Esq.. o/o Collins & Corbin, #1 Exchange Place, Jersey City. New Jersey. Dear Mr. Markley: Re: Canfield vs. U. S. Rudium Corporation. I have had considerable communication with you and Mr. Smith relative to the physion examination of Urs. Ganfield. As you know, I have to suit the convenience of not only yourself and your doctors, but also that of my doctors, my client and myself. That makes, I feol, a short notiqe ex- amination an impossibility. In oräer to settle the matter I wish, therefore, to make this suggestion. I will present Mrs. Canfield in this office on Sunday, March 17, 1929, at 10 o'olock in the forenoon, for examination by Doctors Brother and Rector. I will have my doc- tors present at that time. May I further say that I trust that at the time of the exanination, that your doctors will confine themsèlves to the intent and spirit of the statute under which they are to oxamine. I disouased with Judge Smith the nature of the order whioh be signed and requested that it be delimited. He told me, however, that the proper procedure would be to simply refuse to allow the examination to go beyond what I considered to be the proper limit and then, if you insisted, to have the point brought before nin to be ruled one The two things which I, of course, had in mind na basis of objection, were examina- tions by Dr. Schlundt and Dr. Flinn who are not physicians and who, therefore, I do not think should participate in the examina- tion, and secondly, the taking of blood. Dr. St. George will be present, however, and the matter of the blood picture could be handled by nis taking the blood in the presence of your doctors, if that is agreeable. I do not think that the statute contem- plates necessiteting anyone's undergoing even a minor operation for the sake of litigation. On the matter of electroscopic tests, in view of what has previously transpired with reference to Dr. Plinn, I on say now that without n. specific order of the Court, explicit- ly naming hin as one to participate in the examination, I will not