Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1902-01-27

the pest house, the counsel for the
defense conceded that lac should have
thoroughly disnfocted himself and the
main reliance for acquittal was based
on the contention that he did So
What are the facts2 After having
examined the patient IN the pest house
and talking With the nurse, being eX-
posed 10 the foul air OF the rooms SO
that he was infected, II any germs were
there The mayor testified that he went
direct 10 the standard Office IN the bug
gy with Sanitary Inspector Powers, lie
IL cOntradicted IN this most material
point by two witnesses for The prOsgcu-
don Mr. and Mrs, Groome, who said
that he went over 90 their house i'm"
medately after leaving the pest house,
anu sull wearing the same clothes he
bad on at the visit and had pro-
lonEed conversation with them, They
are corrObOrated by Mr. Powers les-
tmony witness called by the defense,
And the conclusion ~ irresistible that
the mayors memory failed him There
n a difference among the witnesses as
~ whether or not Mr. Glasmonn shook
hands with the Groumes, the latter
TOO, iestifying that he did, ana the for
ner Mrs. Powers, that he did not 1T
Is not material because be came close
enough TO them TO communicate any
germs he may have had about his body
These people have never had the SMALL
pox, we're susceptible to IT, and the fact
HAT they lived not a great distance
From the pest house and are Of humble
station IN lie does not deprive them of
the protection OF the laws. II Is no
eNcuse Tor the mayor exposing them
T. dread disease--especial since
Rom his own testimony Il appears that
ID had read the law and must have
p Known. had he stopped 10 consider that
ae was violating Il as to them
Mr Powers who showed a DISPOSE
ton on the stand 10 shield the mayor
M lar as possible consistent with the
trutu, yet testified thai he let the
mayor out of bis buggy at The corner
81 1Nchty-hfth street and Washington
aytnue Un theh return from the pest
huse so that the defendant must have
asaH boon mistaken when he said that
he wen, direct IA the Standard Office
he must have walked there along one
OF Tie most thickly frequented streets
Of the clay ana mingled with quite a
few btOple before be- could change his
clothes or disinfect them.
Arriving at the Standard Office he
changed his clothes and dIsinfected
them His testimony as 10 how he did
this IL somewhat indefinite, The means
used IN preparing the mixture was
hardly scientific. But II II We're ma
ieiieL the court would az 1t Is bound
to DO IN a criminal action resolved ey-
cry doubt On favoI Of the defendant,
ana find that the dislnfectlon was thor
0ugh l}ut II Is not material because
bis statements that he changed his
clothes remains unchallenged, even by
the prosecution. and under the statutes
thar Is sufficient. The defense OVerdid
its proofs when Il attempted 10 show
h0ihv1ihat an tbs testimony Of the doe
fsssas % whether or not carhollc acid
IS a proper damicctant Is unnecessary
Counsel Tor the defense stated In the
nrgument iha, il was immateria IN
his view Of the case, whether or not the
persons detained az the pesthouse was
suffering from smallpox or not
He relied wholly on the fact that the
defendant changed his clothes and dis
indicted himself before mingling VITA
others lnasmuch as the court Is first
TO disagree with him on this point II
becomes necessary to decide whether or
not the patient had smallpox. The
Judge examined the evidence on this
point and found that he had the
smallpox. 1t will thus be seen that The
two material facts necessary have been
proven by the prosecution beyond the
peradyentire of a doubt that the de-
PENDANT did expose himself 20 q c0nta-
gious disease and that he mingled with
others in the clothing worn by him
while 80 exposed, and before the same
had been thoroughly dlsinfected. But
while there has certainly been tech
nical violation of the law ON he part
OF the defendant the consequences Of
this vialOtion have not been very ser-
GUS. Only two persons were violently
exposed the others were met boy the
mayor after a ride Of two miles, which
two doctors testified was in Itself a
good disinfestant. In view of this fact
and Of the further fact that there was
no wilful violation Of the law the court
will act upon the suggestion Of coun-
sci for the prosecution and Impose only
n nominal fine. The court then being
fully advised In the premises finds The
defendant guilty as charged.
Wherefore, It is ordered and adjudged
that said defendant pay fine Of So
(siRned) ]. A. HOWELL,
Judge Of ogden Municipal Court