Of nineteen cultures isolated from nineteen of the carriers, only two were virulent, which would indicate that only 0.097 per cent of the people examined carried organisms capable of producing disease. An interesting further point is that the bacillus Hoffmanii was present in at least 41.9 per cent of over 2,000 individuals examined, and that the forty-nine cultures morphologically identified as bacillus Hoffmanii were avirulent. This would confirm the impression gained, we believe, by most experienced laboratory workers, that a true Hoffmanii can be distinguished with considerable certainty from a Klebs-Loeffler bacillus by morphological examination alone, and that its significance is probably that of a frequently present saprophyte of the throat and pharynx. The studies of Goldberger, Williams and Hatchtel also indicate that in examining for diphtheria carriers, it is best not to confine oneself either to the nose or throat, but that cultures should be taken from both places in every case.—_The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine._ INJURIES FROM HOT WATER BOTTLE. In an action against a sanatorium and its superintendent it appeared that the plaintiff had employed the superintendent to perform an operation for hernia. After the operation was performed the doctor carried the plaintiff to the room assigned to him and placed him in bed while still under the influence of an anesthetic. A rubber bottle, filled with very hot water, had been placed in the bed, and the unconscious man was laid upon it, and was burned on his back severely. The witnesses described the wound as being 15 to 18 inches in diameter. He also received a smaller burn on his side; the attendants, believing that his struggles on becoming conscious were due to delirium, having held him down on the bed for a time and then turned him on his side. He was under treatment from the burns for a number of months and suffered excruciating pain. The jury found the doctor, but not the sanatorium, guilty, and rendered a verdict for $5,000, which the trial court reduced to $2,500. On appeal, the court said that it did not mean to condemn the doctor, nor even to say that he was in fact negligent; but, taking the situation as it found it, and as the jury observed it, there was evidence to justify them in finding that the doctor had not exercised proper care; and, having so found, the court had no right to dispute the verdict. It also held that the damages awarded were not excessive.—Grosshart v. Shaffer, Oklahoma Supreme Court, 152 Pac. 441.—_Medical Record._ HEART INHIBITION DURING VOMITING.