NOTES OF RECENT CASES three dollars was due the constable, while if a vagrancy charge had been made, a fee of but seventy cents was allowed. The tramps and rounders who were taken in were entirely con tent with the few drinks of whiskey, which placed them in a proper condition to be arrested, and for the short term in the county jail where they were well fed by the sheriff at the expense of the county and to the profit of the sheriff. It seems that the plan worked so well that it extended to other towns. As soon as the term of service of one of the tramps had expired, he renewed the scheme in another locality, and they soon worked out a small circuit of towns to be included in their wanderings. As the court says, they obtained quite a close acquaintanceship with certain peace officers and with the interiors of certain county jails along the route of their peregrinations. The serious side of the case is brought out in the claim that the items were improperly disallowed, and effort was made to have the action of the town auditors reviewed by the courts. In finally dis posing of the point the Appellate Division holds that the Board of County Supervisors must be given the widest latitude, and that the courts will very rarely interfere with boards' discretion when exercised reasonably and in good faith. IXJURIES TO SERVANT. (PROXIMATE CAUSE — MANNER OF PROOF.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE Div. A most extraordinary disquisition upon the doc trine of proximate cause is found in the case of Stenger v. Buffalo Union Furnace Co., 90 New York Supplement 222, which was an action brought to recover for the alleged wrongful death of plaintiff's intestate while employed in operating a blast furnace of the defendant. The deceased •died from injuries received by falling into the hopper at the top of the furnace after being over come by escaping gas. It is conceded that a certain amount of gas must necessarily escape while the furnace is being operated, but it is al leged that at this particular time, owing to the fact that the appliances were not in proper con dition, unusual quantities of gas escaped, and it is upon the negligence of the company in permit ting these conditions to exist that the suit is based. In attempting to ascertain the proximate cause, the court delivers this remarkable statement: "In this case the burden rested upon the plaintiff to prove that the gas which overcame plaintiff's in testate escaped because of defendant's neglect. We think she failed to sustain such burden. There is no evidence which tends to prove that at the time of the accident the explosion doors opened 'because of their defective condition, and if so open,
123
there is nothing to indicate what amount of gas escaped from them, or what effect it had upon the air at the top of the furnace. Again, the evidence fails to show what amount of gas, if any, escaped from around the outside of the hopper, or if it did so escape, that deceased inhaled any of it. So, with respect to the alleged defect in the hopper extension, did the gas which overcame deceased come up into the hopper while it was being filled, because of such defects, or did it escape immedi ately previous when the bell was lowered and the entire top of the furnace practically uncovered? The answer to the question cannot be found in the evidence. There is no proof that any gas, or if any, how much, escaped from the cracks or de fects which were in or about the explosion doors, or that such gas came in contact with the de ceased. Upon the night in question there was gas about the top of the furnace sufficient in quan tity to overcome the deceased and affect his fellow workers. Some of it was there properly and unavoidably. Some of it, we may assume, was there improperly and because of the neglect of the defendant. What proportion escaped and was present because of defendant's negligence, and whether or not it caused the injuries com plained of, it is impossible to determine from the evidence. It is pure speculation to say that the gas, if any, which escaped by reason of the negli gence of the defendant, caused the injuries of which the plaintiff complained, rather than the gas which was unavoidably about the top of the furnace, the presence of which was in no manner due to negligence." A summary of the evidence which was submitted is interesting. The court itself says "that it tended to show that the brick work between the lower edge of the hopper and the walls of the furnace was cracked and broken, that the plates covering the space at the upper edge were warped and out of place, that thus gas was permitted to escape from around the hopper; also that the hopper extension which was in tended to fit closely around the edge of the bell was broken and in such condition that gas could escape into the hopper while it was being filled; also that the explosion doors were out of repair and in such condition that gas could escape around them when closed; that they would open too easily, and when thrown open by the force of the explosion would not close automatically as they were intended to do. While the evidence which tended to establish such facts was contra dicted by the defendant, it was of such a character as to raise a question of fact as to these issues, and to justify the jury in finding that the de fendant was negligent in respect to the matters adverted to." The evidence also showed that
