osnoamc v. or•rY on DETROIT. 39
vided, but we know of no civil case where the injured person has not
been permitted to exhibit his wounds to the jury.
In Schroeder v. Railroad Co., 47 Iowa, 375, it was held not only that
the plaintiff would be permitted, in actions for personal injuries, to ex-
hibit his wounds or injuries to the jury, but that he might be required
by the court, upon proper application therefor by the defendant, to
submit his person to an examination for the purpose of ascertaining the
extent of such injuries, and upon refusal might be treated as in con~
tempt. See,-also, Mulhndo v. Railroad Co., 30 -N. Y. 370.
But, even considering the testimony to have been improper, as there
was not the slightest evidence offered by the defendant tending to show
that the plaintiff was not completely paralyzed, (and in fact this was .
substantially admitted upon argument to the jury,) the defendant could
not have been prejudiced by the testimony. We are not authorized to ·
infer that the sympathies of the jury were moved to. a greater degree by
this exhibition than by the uncontradicted testimony that the plaintiff
had suffered a complete paralysis.
3. That the court improperly allowed the testimony of the witness
Moore as to the condition of the sidewalk from the rear of thestation to
the intersection or junction of Michigan avenue and Church street. The
lot in front of which the accident occurred was a triangular piece of
ground belonging to the defendant, the west 50 feet of which was occu-
pied by a police station, and the east 25 feet of which belonged to the
same parcel of ground, but was not occupied. It was shown that the
accident occurred about half the distance from the front to the rear of
thebuilding. The witness Moore was permitted to testify, not only as
to the condition of the walk immediately adjoining the station-house, but
also to the fact that the easterly end of the walk in front of the vacant
portion of the lot was in a very bad condition, and that, as policeman,
he had reported to Sullivan, the inspector of streets, that it was out of
repair. The evidence tended to show that, while there were several
planks loose immediately where the accident occurred, the easterly end
of the walk, beginning about 25 feet from that spot, and extending about
25 feet to Michigan avenue, was in a worse condition. The court was
and still is of the opinion that plaintiff was not confined to proving the
condition of the walk at the exact spot where the injury occurred. Bear-
ing in mind that the duty of keeping this entire walk in repair was cast
upon the city, not only by virtue of its charter, but by virtue of its acts
ual ownership of the lot in front of which the walk lay, we think that
evidence of the bad condition of this walk anywhere from Michigan ave-
nue to Trumbull avenue was competent. Of course, there should be
reasonable discretion exercised in admitting evidence of the condition of
the walk near the accident, but we think, in any case, if it be so near
the place of accident that a person examining the walk, or responsible
for the condition of the walk in that neighborhood, would be likely also
to notice the defect at the spot where the accident occurred, it would be
competent. In this case there can be little doubt that, had the city per- ‘
formed its duty in repairing the easterly end of the walk, its performance `