Compensation of county health officer.-The North Carolina law authorized the county board of health to fix the salary of the county superintendent of health, subject to the approval of the board of county commissioners. The board of health of Harnett County elected a superintendent of health and fixed his salary at $600 per annum. The board of county commissioners refused to approve the salary for more than $300 per annum. He brought suit for the salary of $600. The court held that he could not recover more than $300. (Public Health Reports, May 5, 1916, p. 1147.)

LAWS, ORDINANCES, AND REGULATIONS-VALIDITY AND EFFECT.

To be valid as a health measure a statute or ordinance must provide real protection to the public health.-An ordinance of Nashville, N. C., prohibited the erection of a privy or stable nearer to a neighbor's residence than it was to the owner's. The North Carolina Supreme Court decided that the ordinance was void, as it failed to protect the health of the inhabitants of the town, "as under it stables may be kept with impunity obnoxiously near any number of dwellings if they are equally as near the dwelling of the owner of the stables. Thus, it is put within the power of the owner to annoy his neighbor at will if he is willing to endure the same annoyance himself." (Public Health Reports, Aug. 4, 1916, p. 2115.)

Subordinate city board can not nullify an ordinance of the city.The municipality itself may, by ordinance, amend, alter, or repeal an ordinance; but a board, department, or commission of the municipal government can not, directly or indirectly, change the effect of an ordinance. (Public Health Reports, Jan. 14, 1916, p. 83.)

Ordinances must be reasonable and not unnecessarily burdensome. An ordinance which prohibits the placing of tin cans, manure, ashes, or rubbish in a street or alley, or permitting such articles or substances to remain on a lot, is unreasonable and void, because the ordinance is unnecessarily burdensome and it makes no distinetion between conditions which are harmful and those which would not affect health or comfort. [Kans.] (Public Health Reports, Sept. 8, 1916, p. 2465.)

Classifications must be reasonable.-Municipal rules must be reasonable; and a classification of apartment houses which excludes the inhabitants of certain apartments from the benefits of the removal of ashes because of the number of stories in the buildings and the fact that they have elevators is arbitrary and unreasonable. (Public Health Reports, Jan. 14, 1916, p. 83.)

DECISIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN COMMUNICABLE DISEASES.

Diphtheria-Diagnosis. A physician is not liable for damages for failure to correctly diagnose a case of diphtheria unless he has been negligent or has displayed a lack of skill in his profession. [Wis.] (Public Health Reports, Sept. 8, 1916, p. 2466.)

Rabies Prevention-Ordinance authorizing destruction of dogs not valid. The Supreme Court of Oregon decided that an ordinance which provided for destroying impounded dogs without a judicial hearing, and in some cases without notice to the owners, was void as authorizing the taking of property without due process of law, (Public Health Reports, Feb. 4, 1916, p. 272.)

Typhoid fever-Evidence required to prove source of infection.-A city dump, where human excrement and bodies of dead animals were deposited, was located about 1,940 feet from plaintiff's dwelling. Members of the plaintiff's family contracted typhoid fever, but there was no evidence showing the source of the infection or that the bacillus typhosus existed at the dump. The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that the proof was insufficient to show that the dump was the cause of the disease. (Public Health Reports, Feb. 18, 1916, p. 396.)

Typhoid fever.-The contracting of typhoid fever by employees from drinking impure water furnished by the employer was held to be an accident arising out of the conduct of the business. (Public Health Reports, Aug. 18, 1916, p. 2235.)

Vaccination-School children-Power of legislature. The legislature, in the exercise of its police power, may require or empower a local or administrative authority to require vaccination of teachers and pupils as a condition of their being admitted to the public schools, although smallpox be not prevalent or its outbreak be not apprehended. [Ky.] (Public Health Reports, Dec. 29, 1916, p. 3551.)

Syphilis. The New Jersey Court of Chancery decided that the fact that one party to a marriage was afflicted with syphilis at the time of marriage is not sufficient to enable the court to annul the marriage in the absence of a statute authorizing such action. (Public Health Reports, Oct. 13, 1916, p. 2901.)

OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAWS.

Connecticut-Occupational diseases not included in the Connecticut law. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut decided that it was not the intention of the Connecticut Legislature in passing the workmen's compensation law to make provision for paying compensation to workmen suffering from occupational diseases. (Public Health Reports, Oct. 6, 1916, p. 2797.)

Lead poisoning.-An employee of the American Steel & Wire Co., was incapacitated for a short time by lead poisoning which was contracted in the course of his employment. The Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut decided that he was not entitled to compensation under the law of that State. (Public Health Reports, Oct. 6, 1916; p. 2797.)

Massachusetts-Occupational diseases not included in the Massachusetts law. The Massachusetts workmen's compensation law as construed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court does not provide for compensation for occupational diseases as such. "Personal injury" is the only ground for compensation. But whatever is rightly described as a personal injury," if received in the course of and arising out of the employment, becomes the basis for a claim. (Public Health Reports, July 14, 1916, p. 1877.)

Heart disease.-Under the Massachusetts workmen's compensation law, an employee who has a weak heart and whose work requires exertion which so aggravates and accelerates the disease as to incapacitate the employee is entitled to compensation. (Public Health Reports, July 14, 1916, p. 1877.)

18643°-17- -20

Syphilis retarding recovery.-Claimant was injured and payments were made for some time under the Michigan workmen's compensation law. Recovery was retarded because the claimant was suffering from syphilis. The Michigan Supreme Court decided that it was impossible to determine what part of the period of disability was attributable to the injury and what part was caused by the disease. The order of the industrial accident board directing that payments be continued was affirmed. (Public Health Reports, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 2725.)

MILK.

License-Discrimination.-The Court of Appeals of Kentucky decided that an ordinance which imposes a license tax upon milk dealers is not void because it exempts from its provisions grocery stores selling milk where the grocery stores pay a license tax covering their entire business. (Public Health Reports, Sept. 29, 1916, p. 2727.)

Failure to register dairy-Penalty.-A California law required the registration of dairies. The defendant purchased milk from ar unregistered dairy and refused to pay for it on the ground that the sale of milk from such a dairy was unlawful. The court held that the only penalty provided by the law for failure to register was fine or imprisonment; that the law did not make the sale of milk from an unregistered dairy unlawful; and that the milk must be paid for. (Public Health Reports, Sept. 15, 1916, p. 2523.)

FOODSTUFFS.

Shellfish from contaminated waters.-The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a law which prohibited the taking of shellfish from waters which had been declared by the State board of health to be contaminated. (Public Health Reports, Sept. 1, 1916, p. 2377.)

Pork-Dealer held liable-Massachusetts.-Mrs. Gearing, acting as the agent of her husband, purchased from the defendants some pork chops. The chops were selected by one of the defendants, who sold them. They were eaten by Mrs. Gearing and her husband, and both were made ill. The findings of fact showed that the defendants had not been guilty of negligence. The court decided that under the laws of Massachusetts Mr. Gearing could recover damages for the breach of an implied warranty that the chops were sound and wholesome, but that the warranty did not extend to any person other than the purchaser. Consequently Mrs. Gearing could not recover. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 22, 1916, p. 3477.)

HABIT-FORMING DRUGS.

Oklahoma law-Unlawful selling. The Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma sustained a conviction under a State statute which prohibited the sale of habit-forming drugs except upon a physician's prescription. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 15, 1916, p. 3437.)

66

New York law-" Dispensing."-A physician who issues a prescription for narcotic drugs does not "dispense" the drugs within

the meaning of the New York public-health law. (Public Health Reports, Oct. 20, 1916. p. 2951.)

New York law-Physicians' records.-The New York publichealth law requires persons who "sell, administer, prescribe, dispense, or dispose of "habit-forming drugs to keep a record of "the name and address of each person to whom such drug is dispensed." A physician issued prescriptions for habit-forming drugs and failed to keep records. The court held that he did not "dispense" them and that he was not required to keep records of such prescriptions. (Public Health Reports, Oct. 20, 1916, p. 2951.)

Texas law construed.-The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas decided that it was not a violation of the Texas law for a physician to prescribe habit-forming drugs for the purpose of alleviating pain or curing a drug habit. (Public Health Reports, Sept. 15, 1916, p. 2525.)

DRUGS AND POISONS.

Sherley amendment.-The purpose of the Sherley amendment to the Federal pure food and drugs law was to punish false and fraudulent statements regarding the curative or therapeutic effects of drugs or any of their ingredients.

Jury found that statements on the label of a medicine which was shipped in interstate commerce were false and were intended to convey false impressions relative to the curative properties of the medicine. The court decided that the medicine was misbranded, and was liable to forfeiture, under the Sherley amendment to the Federal pure food and drugs law.

If the persons shipping medicines in interstate commerce honestly believe that the statements on the labels are true, the medicines are not misbranded within the meaning of the term "misbranded" as defined in the Sherley amendment. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 8, 1916, p. 3383.)

Damages against city.-The New York Supreme Court held that the inhabitants of a city or village collectively have no more right. to pollute the waters of a stream than has an individual, and if a city empties its sewage into a stream and injury results to owners of land along the stream, the city is liable for damages, and may be restrained by injunction. (Public Health Reports, Jan. 7, 1916, p. 29.)

Damages can be recovered against a city for discharging its sewage into a stream so as to pollute the water of the stream and injure lower property owners. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 15, 1916, p. 3431.)

No recovery for pollution from natural drainage.-When the natural surface drainage rendered the water of the stream unfit for use before the city discharged its sewage into the stream, damages could not be recovered against the city on the ground that the water could not be used after sewers were constructed. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 15, 1916, p. 3431.)

Law authorizing sewer system does not authorize the creation of a nuisance.-According to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, legis

lative authority to install a sewer system carries no implication of authority to create or maintain a nuisance, and if a nuisance be created by a city, the same remedies may be invoked as if the proprietor were an individual. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 8, 1916, p. 3385.)

Legislative authority to discharge sewage into a stream does not justify a city in creating a nuisance or in inflicting injuries which amount to the taking of property in a constitutional sense unless the city has acquired the right by condemnation and the payment of compensation. [Oreg.] (Public Health Reports, Feb. 25, 1916, p. 465.)

Distinction between navigable and small streams.-With legislative authority a city may discharge sewage into navigable or tidal streams if done in a proper manner, but it is doubtful if the legislature can authorize such use of a stream the bed and banks of which are in private ownership. (Public Health Reports, Feb. 25, 1916, p. 465.)

Time when suit must be begun.-Under the Kentucky statute limiting the time within which suits must be brought, damages can be recovered for pollution of streams if the injury was done within five years before the institution of the suit. (Public Health Reports, Dec. 15, 1916, p. 3431.)

The statute of Virginia required that such actions be brought within five years after the right of action accrued. Suit was begun within five years after sewage was discharged into the stream in sufficient quantity to work injury, but more than five years after the time when the first sewer was constructed. The Supreme Court of Virginia decided that the suit was begun in time. (Public Health Reports, Apr. 14, 1916, p. 970.)

Power of State board of health.-The Supreme Court of Oregon decided that the right of the State to enjoin a city from polluting a stream may be delegated to and exercised by the State board of health. (Public Health Reports, Feb. 25, 1916, p. 465.)

Damage to oyster beds.-The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia decided that a municipality has the right to discharge sewage into tidal waters, subject to the control of the State legislature, and a person who leases oyster beds from the State with knowledge of the polluted condition of the beds can not recover damages from the municipality because of such pollution. (Public Health Reports, Aug. 4, 1916, p. 2113.)

Damages and injunction against college.-A college constructed a sewer system which discharged into a small stream and poliuted the water. Suit was brought by an owner of land on the stream. The court decided that the complainant was entitled to an injunction and to damages for the injury inflicted. [Va.] (Public Health Reports, Apr. 14, 1916, p. 970.)