The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-09-20
CASES OF INTEREST

A Turkey as an Animals a tur-
 key an animal? In HoIconab vs- Van ZyIen, 40 Northwestern Reporter, 521, defendants dog raised havoc"
 with plaintiffs turkeys, and the dam
 age which resulted is sought to be re- covered under statute of Michigan
 providing that if any dog kills, wounds
 or worries any sheep, etc., Tor other
 domestic anina1,'' it's owner shall be
 liable in double the amount of dam
 ages sustained. As turkeys are not
 specifically named in the statute, to be
 embraced within it's terms the author
 ity for such a construction can only
 lie in the words "or other domestic
 animal The Supreme Court of
 Michigan holds that an animal is
 properly defined as any animate being
 which is not human, endowed with
 the power of bodily motion, and that
 this definition is sufficiently conpre-
 hensive to include turkeys or other fowls The opinion in this case is
 by Judge Bird. Very appropriate, surely.
 If It Made Her Sick, What About The Nefghbors? the complaint in Rowe vs. Charles H. Ditson Co.,, 40 New York Supplement- 929, the fol- lowing state of facts was alleged: Plaintiff complained that she nego- tiated with the defendant for the pur- chase of a harp and that in consider ation of such purchase and of other covenants and agreements the defen- dant undertook to teach her the art of playing the harp, and did enter upon such instruction under such contract, and that by reason of tncompetency and neglect on the part of the in structor furnished by the defendant, the plaintiff became nervous, sick and acquired, by reason of such negli- HT1 <z1f% dant denied. the contract, and also de- nfed the causes alleged in the com plaint resulting therefrom, and fur ther alleged that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The uninttiated who have not lived in a fiat and heard. the nneIodious discords of the daughter of the family upstairs will perhaps wonder how one could become nervous, sick, and acquire per manent injury by reason of negligence in musical instruction, but those who have had that experience will under stand. We are also tempted. to won der as to just what the contributory negligence could consist of. The de- cision cited above was merely on a motion for change of venue and did not involve the merits of the contro- versy.
 Liability of Surgeon for Negligence in Operation.-Plaintiff sues sur geon in Palmer vs. Huniston, 101 Northeastern Reporter, 28S, for neg Hgence in performing an operation. It appears that while performing said operation defendant used and inserted in the opening made in the patient a large gauge or cheesec1oth sponge, which he failed to remove after com p1eting the operation, although it was A inches square. Plaintiff charges that defendant continued to treat her for six months thereafter, during which time he permitted the sponge to remain imbedded in her, and that. by reason thereof she suffered intense pain, and that the sponge, during the said period of six months, had abrad- l ed, worn through, and severely injur- ed her internally, and that she was compelled to suffer a, second operation l at the hands of another surgeon for the purpose of relieving her condition. | which operation resulted in finding | and removing the sponge. "The defen- | dant undertook to excuse himself be | cause in the performance of the op- eration, it was necessary in careful | and skilled surgery to secure the as- sistance of certain nurses, internes, | and associate surgeons in and about | the hospital, and that included among | them was Miss Kelly, the head nurse, to whom he intrusted the duty of counting the sponges before putting ]