The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1875-05-13

NosEI MATT kk>--. AtHouK thc usiS
imporran, causes brought 10 conclu-
sion at the recent term OF the District
Court, other than IS indicated last
week, are the following: For nui-
sanee. in each case q claimed infrac-
tioa OF the liquor lsu, the following
fines were imposed: George icons,
s.: E. B. Town, t25 c. GheIken,
s25 {. Koch. t25-;he two last
named having also each a $50 fine for
keeping q gambling house.
Divorce from the bonds Of matri-
mony was granted the plaintiffs in
each Of the following cases, default OF
defendant in every instance: Julia
johnson We. Geo. Johnson; Lvsander
Rifenburg VS.. Eliza A.; Matilda A.
vs.. John Hrrshfeldt B. F. Weber
VS.. Alice A.
In the cases of Earnest Mckee,
Page Hatch and Adam BAir, under
bonds, respectively in the sum of ten
and fifteen hundred dollars, for ap-
pearance on charge Of murder in Sec
ond degree, the Grand Jury reported
no bill and defendants were discharg-
ed.
In the case Of State VS.. Jack Ryan,
indicted for murder, leugthy trial
BY jury was had, resulting in YER
diet of guilty of murder in the second
degree. District Attorney Smith, as
sisted by S. H. Fairall, very ably con-
Quoted the prosecution, while the de-
fence was strongly made by Wolf &
Landt and X. 0. Holmes.
ID. Purza was also tried by jury up
on charge of murder, connected with
the well remembered death Of VIM.
Brommell, here last fall. This case
was most ably contested by the Dis
trict Attorney and Mr.. Carr, on the
part of the State, and by Hon. w. E.
Lefiingwell and S. V. Landt, for the
defendant. Without reference to
questions of fact, the public will be
mos, interested in the really vital point
of the case, viz: May = man, claim
ing to be physician, be made GRIM
inal!y liable for bad results from i'm
proper medicine administered, or op-
erations performed by him, with in
tent 70 relieve and for the purpose OF
relieving a patient? The State sub
mitted that when death was the re-
suit Of any such ignorant or careless
act, the person administering or op-
Grating, was guilty of manslaughter.
| There being no statute law on the
subject, the authorities in the old
common law were summoned in great
force, both to prove and disprove this
proposition - the defence taking
ground that in the absence Of stat
utory law amy man had perfect RICH,
to call himself physician and to pro.
coed, in his own way, to the attempt.
ed relief of suffering humanity; that
therefore the administering of med
icine by any one could not be in Itself
an unlawful act, and fatal result.
therefrom could not be adjudged man
slaughter, unless plainly consequent
upon the grossest and most glarine
carelessness, or lack of knowledge
not such as physician, but such as
any ordinary sane person would b.
expected to have. The case was ar
gued very extensively by both sides
the speech of Judge LeHingwell being
particularly brilliant effort. Judg,
/ Rothrock, in his instructions to tn,
jury, substantially agreed with the
defence as to the Interpretation o
the law. upon which the verdict O
not guilty was by no means unexpect
ed.
We have thus attempted to max.
tie point at issue in this case plair
to our readers because it seems to VI
that it is one in which the public i.
interested. Twice, at least, has q bill
been before the General Assembly O
the State TO prevent empiricism-ie.
! ignorant and unscientiic practice
and thus shut out the army Of quacks
who are yearly humbugging the deal
! people, bat it failed to pass. Per.
haps this was all right in free coun.
try" As TO that, every man will have
an opinion Of his own: but there is one
thing certain-he who never, under
any circumstances, patronizes quacks
and charlatans is not the one mos,
deeply interested.
/ DIED.