The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1913-09-20

them 1n- the tOOdy and upon rem owing
 them from the body, and that he re- lied upon the accuracy of her count,
 and that if there was any error in her
 count he was not responsible. The
 trial resulted in verdict for $5,OOO and defendant appeals. The Supreme Court of Ohio holds that the issue of agency is not in the case, and that de- fendant is responsible for the proper removal of the sponge. The judg- ment is affirmed.
 Misuse of Decoys.-The extent to which government officers may go in their zeal to entrap criminals by means of decoys is clearly stated in
 United States vs. Healy, POP Federal Reporter, 349, by the United States District Court The conviction was for selling intoxicants to an Indian who was in the service of the gov ernment officers as a decoy. It was claimed that there was suspicion that defendant was making like unlawful sales, and 1t. was sought to entrap him in this instance. Defendant was ignorant that the purchaser was an Indian, and nothing in the latter's dress, speech, manner, or appearance served to put him on inquiry therein; the Indian approximatin those not Indians. Is such a conviction just :? The court holds that a conviction un- der such circumstances is not only un- just, but contrary to public policy
 'Decoys are permissible to entrap criminals, but not to create them; to present opportunity to those having intent to, or willing to, commit crime but not to ensnare the law abiding in unconscious offending. * Though the seller has violated the statute, he was the passive instrument of the government, and his is a blame- less wrong, for which he cannot be justly convicted'' The court con- cludes that in the case at bar the act was innocent, but for the status of the solicitor and because he is a decoy of concealed disability the act is blame less and there is estoppeI against conz viction. Were it otherwise, honest men could easily be made felons, for many of the governments Indian wards are not distinguishable from CaucaSians.
 The Barren May Bear Fruit.-A most unusual basis for a new trial is developed in Anshutz vs. Louisville Ky. Co.,, 154 Southwestern Reporter, 13, which may be either a reflection on the wisdom of the science of med icine and surgery or simply the brow ess of woman to baffle all. In April, 1910, Lillian Anshutz, a young mar ried woman 23 years of age was in
 
 car. At the time of the accident she was enceinte, and shortly thereafter there was born to her a boy baby. In April, 1911, she was taken to a hospi- tai, where serious operation was per formed upon her, at which time it is shown by several physicians and sur geons who were present that there was removed from her body both Ethiopian tubes, the whole of the left .ovary, and part Of the right ovary. Thereafter she sued the railroad company. Pre- vious to tho trial the court appointed a surgeon to examine the woman as to the nature and extent of her injuries. On the trial all the physicians and surgeons testified as to the nature of the operation, and, in addition, that by reason thereof Mrs. Anshutz was made barren and could never have another child They further stated that there had developed 8 tumor in her abdomen, which would sooner or later necessitate still another, and pos sibIy more serious, operation. Ehe physician appointed by the court tes- tified, in substance, to the same thing The jury rendered verdict for STOOD for the plaintiff. Defendant asks for a new triaI-for wonders will never cease: On the 3rd day of June, 1912 Mrs Anshutz gave birth to another boy baby. fFWelcome, infant" saith the railroad company. 'and now we should have a new trial, for it has been proven, out of court, that the woman is not barren and that what was said to be a tumor was in fact a foetus, and, instead of a future op-