The Delta independent., 1906-03-16
WEATHER BUREAU LORE.
GUY ELLIOTT MITCHELL.

While the Weather Bureau and its
forecasts have been the subject Of many
jokes and puns at the hands Of the
newspapers yet seriously the Weather
Bureau records are now having in.
creased use rs evidence in the courts
Of the country.
During the past ten years observers
OF the Weather Bureau have appeared
with records in court nearly three
thousand times. Evidence as to the
weather is great factor in q variety
OF cases. both civil and criminal Civil
cases are largely personal injury. dam,
age to perishable goods, as by freezing
or rain, and loss by IRE. The criminal
cases are usually confined to murder
trials. In most cases claims for dam
ages are almost always settled outside
OF court. Information as to the existing
weather conditions having been secured
by both sides. As q usual thing when an
dmcial OF the Weather Bureau appears In
court with records to give testimony, he
does not know the character Of the suit
on trial, Tor 1t In generally arranged
BY the attorneys to put him on the
stand Immediately upon his arrival
in court and he Is excused after his
testimony ha0 been given.
An observer of the Weather Bureau
was once called in q case in which the
plaintiff had stated that while she was
riding in a street car she attempted
to shut window in order to keep out
, the raw cold weather. As the car
reached q curve she was suddenly
thrown headlong into the street. The
railway introduced the weather record
to show that on the date of the alleged
accident the weather was warm and
sunny and there was NO occasion for
shutting q window. The wind records
Of the Weather Bureau are valuable
during trials involving damage by
wind. such as blowing down Of build.
ings, super structures and flag STATS,
the wrecking Of vessels. on the lakes
and ocean ETC.. and seldom Is q suit
for damage caused by high wind brought
in any Of the large cities that the
Weather records are not called into
court.
Evidence IL sometimes desired In .
case Of damage by lightning. Several
years ago q building in Illinois col
'lapsed during q severe thunderstorm.
1t was insured by loss against light
ming and not against loss by wind. The
owner claimed full insurance on the
ground that the destruction Of the
house was caused by a bolt Of light
ming. The matter was placed in the
hands Of the adjuster who In turn
called to his assistance a scientist, then
in charge Of one Of the principal wealth
er bureau oflces. to whom by mutual
consent the decision was left
No Mud on His Boots.
The subject of rainfall was important
in Q peculiar way in . trial In Con-
necticut some years ago. A burglary
had been attempted one night in q
prominent residence and the occupants
believed that they recognized as the
intruder their own coachman who lived
near by In Z stable. A thunder storm
with heavy rain prevailed at that time
and shortly afterwards the ofhcers
who had been summoned put the coach |
man under arrest. He denied the
charge and called attention to the fact
that his shoes were not wet and muddy.
During the trial the Weather records
were produced showing heavy rain at
the time and the Jury concluded that
II was case Of mistaken identity, and
the maA was discharged. hzl
Ssved His Life.
Weather Bureau records have figured
IN some Of the most notable murder |
trials. In one instance an observer was
called BY the defense to show that the
nikht the victim disappeared was dark
and threatening. This evidence con-
tradicted that given witness Tor
the prosecution who had testified thai,
although distant several hundred feet,
he s.w the accused take the victim Into
q factory.
Tho relations between the judiciary