The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1900-02-02

remain indoors and not have any mis-
understanding with the health authori-
ties. He was still of the opinion that
DIR Ragsdale had neither smallpox nor
varioloid; one of his reasons being that
according to DIR. Ragsdale's statement,
the eruption on his body followed the
day after he was taken with a chill,
whereas it was the invariable rule in
cases of smallpox that the eruption fol-
lowed on the third day.
DIR. DEERING J. ROBERTS
then gave his testimony. He had come
out from Nashville at the request of DR.
Sheddan for the purpose of examining
DR.. Ragsdale. tie made a thorough
diagnosis of the case and concluded that
DIR. Ragsdale had neither smallpox nor
varioloid One of his reasons for reach
ing this opinion was that the eruption
on DR.. Ragsdale's body extended to
certain parts of the legs where cru
tions in cases of smallpox were never
seen
The plaintiffs then resumed their tes-
timony, and
DIR. J. G. WILLIAMSON
took the stand. Witness stated that he
was one of the physicians who went to
examine Dr. Ragsdale, and it was his
opinion that he had variooid. The
statements of the other witnesses in re-
gard to ordering DIR. Ragsda to go into
quarantine were concurred in.
DIR. BIDDLE's TESTIMONY
! relative to DR.. Ragsdale's case was sub
stantially the same as that of DR..
| Williamson.
DIR. HARRISON
was the next witness. He stated that
he had seen a great deal OF smallpox
during his medical career. He had eX
amined DR.. Ragsdale, and the symptoms
in his case led him to believe that he
had varioloid, although of very mild
type. If DIR. Cain had not left so soon,
he would liked to have asked him what
DR.. Ragsdale did have, if it was not
smallpox. The smallpox now prevalent
was the lightest form he had ever come
in contact with.
DIR sHEDDAN,
for the defense, was then placed upon
the stand He stated that he had been
with DR. Ragsdale daily, had watched
his case carefully, and was positive in
his belief that he did not have smallpox
1t was his opinion that the eruption on
his body was caused by disorder of the
stomach and kidneys.
The defense closed it's testimony by
placing
DIR. RAGsDALE
himself on the stand, who gave de-
tailed history of his case, stating that
his illness was due to la grippe and not
to smallpox or varioloid. The erup-
ton was caused by his stomach and kid
neys being out of order. He stated that
it was a well-known fact that a person
could not have varioloid who had never
been successfully vaccinated, as vario-
loid is modification of smallpox, caused
only by vaccination. His case had been
pronounced variooid, yet be had never
been successfully vaccinated in his life.
In arguing the case, Messrs. Figuers
and Padgett, for the defendant, maze
the following contentious: That the point
in law was not whether DR. Ragsdale
had smallpox or not, but whether he
had violated any law There was nc
law, either State or municipal, under
which he could be convicted. The war
rant charged the defendant with violat-
ing the rules and regulations of the
Board of Health of Columbia, yet it had
been proven by the President and Secre-
tary of that body themselves that it had
no rules or regulations whatever. They
could not charge that he had violated
any State law, as the State Board OF
Health had made no requirements cover
ing the case in question The mode OF
procedure in quarantining DR.. Rags
dale was ille gal, as the law required
) that the party sought to be quarantined
must first be served with written no
tice; besides, the four members of the
Board of Health who examined DIR
Ragsdale and ordered him into quaran
tine were acting in the capacity of in
dividuals, and not officially, as there
were fifteen members of the Board, anC
the four did not constitute quorum.
Mai. Williamson cOntended that thC
defendant had boldly violated law o
he State and endangered the public
health in refusing to place himself il
quarantine, and that the act of the fou
members of the Board of Health in ex
amining him and ordering him int
e quarantine was in due form of law
= The defense, he said, were pleading
p their case upon mere technicalities.
After hearing the argument, Judge
q Erwin and Whitthorne had short con
). sultation, and as stated above, the de
/ fendant was bound over to the mex
+ term of the Criminal Court, under
o bond of $3.50.
e FALL FROM THIRD STORY.