This instruction in the interest of consistency was undoubtedly responsible for the trial court's refusal to give the previous instruction complained of that only expert testimony could be considered by the jury on the issue of Defendant's negligence. The long established general rule is that medical books or treatises are not admissible to prove the truth of statements therein contained. Brady v. Shirley, 1901, 14 S.D. 447, 85 N.W. 1002. Here it is strongly contended by the Defendant that drug manufacturers' recommendations should receive no better treatment at the hands of the court. The practical use of this rule under the present day "drug" culture is very questionable. New drugs are coming on the market daily; before they are allowed on the market they are put to stringent tests as to their usefulness, and as to possible side effects.

The general rule is that medical books or treatises are not admissible to prove the truth of the statements therein contained. Brady v. Shirley, 14 S.D. 447, 85 N.W. 1002; 32 C.J.S. Evidence § 573; 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, §§ 839 and 846; Wigmore, Evidence, 3d Ed. § 1700; McCormick, Evidence, § 296; Annotation, 82 A.L.R. 440. To hold otherwise would allow testimonial use of statements made out of court by a person not subjected to cross-examination.

Chas. F. Douglass, of Anniston, for appellant. In civil action for seduction, evidence of resemblance between child and putative father is admissible. Paulk v. State, 52 Ala. 427; 40 A.L.R. 106; Brady v. Shirley, 18 S.D. 608, 101 N.W. 886, 5 Ann.Cas. 972; Rex v. Hughes, 22 Ont.L.Rep. 344, 19 Ann.Cas. 534; L.R.A. 1918A, 719. Evidence of facial expression and gesticulation is admissible. Carney v. State, 79 Ala. 14; Batson v. Batson, 217 Ala. 450, 117 So. 10; Bennett v. Fail, 26 Ala. 605; 69 A.L.R. 1169. Merrill Merrill, of Anniston, for appellee.