The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-04-22

MURDE ER BY STABBING CAUS- ING PNEUMONIA A stab in the back which pierced the left lung caus- ed one MflIer's removal to the hospi- taI Two days thereafter his tempe rature shot up, his pulse became rapid. and pneunonia developed. which ca used his death a few days la- ter. His assailant was convicted of murder in the second d degree, the jury finding that the disease was caused by the wounds Expert testimony showed that pneumonia is caused by a bacillp or germ. known as pneu- noeoccuss getting into the lungs from outside. either by inhalation or by in lection through wound. The Su- preme Court of Minnesota, in State vs James, 144 Northwestern Reporter 216.a in discussing the evidence, said: We have given careful consideration to the evidence, and reach the. con the verdict finding that defendant caused the death Of Miller is based on the mere possibiIity or probability that the bacillus reached Millerss lungs through the wounds inflicted by defendant or upon conjecture. We have air eady mentioned, in the state nent Of facts. some of the considera- lions that lead us to reach this con cIusion. Miller exhibited no signs Of having inhaled the dreaded pneumo-
 
 knife opened .ahoIe in his windpipe and pierced his left lung. At the time of the assault he was apparently in robust health. While 1t must be conceded that 1t Is not impossible that he had inhaled the germ, the CO., inciden is remarkable that tho symptoms Of pneuTnonia should de- svelop only after the stabbing. and at about the time they would be expect ed to develop had the germ been in troduced into: the lung on the blade of defen dantss knife. The fact that lung only Is entitled to weight as is also the absence of the chill and the feeling of Iassitude which are ordin- arily the prelisninary sym ptoms when the germ is inhaled
 DEEPEN OE TO REMOVAL FRoHd OFEICEI State vs. Baughn. 143 North Reporter. HOO, it ap- peared that the mayor of an Iowa. town partook of a beverage on cer- tain evening to such an extent that he rendered himself subject to re- novaI from office on the ground of intoxfeation. Of this state Of affairs he was appraised by an attorney. who, on the following day. threatened re- movaI proceedings, but before they had been begun he resigned. where upon the town council reappointed
 
 ceedings were then instituted because of the intoxication of which the may CT was guilty before resignation. The Supreme Court of Iowa, held that the councils nanenver in reappointing. him Q office could have no effect upon the removal proceedings.
 EVIDENCE OF HABIT-Wha is the rule in regard to one,s habit to do or not to do a particular thing as evil dence Of whether the thing was done ? In Chabott vs Grand Trunk Railway Co, S8 Atlantic Reporter. 9a5, plain tiff was run oyer and killed by de- fendant,s train. He was walking in the center of the track at the time, and the question subsequently, arose as to whether he had used due care to look and listen for the approach of ears. To support this contention, it was sought to introduce in evidence his habit to look and listen under such circumstances. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire. in sdispos- ing of the question, said that, while it is not admissible to show general Icarefu1ness. yet aevidence of this char acter has Been admitted to show whether the person did or did not do a particular act at the time in ques- lion upon the ground that 0 person Is more apt to doza thing in the man. ner in which he was in the habit of doing il"