Hallstead – In an effort to prevent the Lackawanna railroad from going through his land, Wm. Florance, a prosperous farmer here has put up two large flagpoles, floating the stars and stripes, and dares the workmen to haul them down. At the local offices of the company, it was said the land on the Florance farm has been condemned and that the company’s tracks are already in place. The situation has been investigated lately, they explained—but it is not likely that the floating of the flags will have any effect. Attorney for the Lackawanna has declared that Florance knew of the land being condemned, and of the tracks being put into place, and had heard something of the flag incident, but expected no trouble. There is no law on the statute books that will prevent the company from taking possession of the land, regardless of the flags.
Montrose – During the Court session on Monday morning wife slayer, Albert Hughes, was denied a new trial and was sentenced to not less than 10 years and no more than 20 years at the Eastern penitentiary, by the Hon. Ralph B. Little. In the marital troubles of Florence and Archie Kent, brought by Mrs. Kent charging non-support, the judge granted her $200 per annum, sum to be paid quarterly. ALSO The safe at the Lehigh Valley station was blown open Tuesday morning, supposedly by yeggmen, who secured about $100 in cash and the same amount in checks. Entrance was gained by forcing a window on the south side of the station and a powerful explosive was used, probably nitro-glycerine. The safe was badly wrecked, a portion of it being hurled through a partition. A Lehigh Valley detective investigated but found nothing to lead to the criminals.
East Lynn – Helen Ward, the 11 year old daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Ward, has not missed a day of school in two years, and she has missed only one word in spelling during the last year. A remarkable record.
Harford – Mary Davis, one of our High school girls, died suddenly last Saturday morning. Prayer was held over the body Sunday morning when it was removed to the home on Union Hill. The funeral was held Tuesday and many of her schoolmates and the teacher attended.
Brooklyn – Next Sunday will be automobile day at the Universalist church. All owning machines have promised to bring people to church who have no means of conveyance from outlying parts. It is fully expected that a great many will avail themselves of this kindness.
ALSO Four of our school teachers have resigned. Principal Tewksbury is going to College to fit himself for a higher grade of teaching, while the future movements of the other teachers are veiled in mystery.
Lake View – The Lake View men will have a wood Bee Tuesday to get wood for the new minister.
Dimock – Elias Titman, Dimock’s official observer and weather bureau, was in town [Montrose] Monday and reported that he measured snow to the depth of 25 inches on April 29th.
Jessup/Peckville, Lackawanna County – Mrs. Margaret Llewellyn, of Peckville, has filed suit for $10,000 damage against Thomas O’Connor, a Jessup druggist. Her husband purchased from the druggist bi-chloride of mercury tablets with suicidal intent. She claims that the druggist had no right to sell her husband the tablets as he was not a resident of Jessup.
Friendsville/Birchardville – A rural mail route between Friendsville and Birchardville was established May 1st, and the many patrons are very grateful to Mr. McMahon, of Friendsville, and Mr. Turrell, of Birchardville, who worked so faithfully to have this route established. The patrons hope it will be extended to Montrose at a not distance date.
Bridgewater Twp. – Mrs. A. M. Snow, of Franklin Forks, was very seriously injured Monday afternoon, when thrown from a wagon, at the railroad crossing near Harrington’s Mills. In the wagon were Mr. .and Ms. Calvin Peck, Aaron Stockholm and E. L. Bailey and Mrs. Snow, all of Franklin Forks, being brought to Montrose by Mr. Peck. The team became frightened at the crossing, as an engine came out of a switch, and the team dashed down the tracks. Mrs. Snow was thrown out and received very serious injuries about the head, the skull being fractured. Some ribs were also broken. She was taken to the home of Dr. F. S. Birchard, where she is being treated. Her condition is still very grave, as of last night, and her daughter, Mrs. Earl Tiffany, of Hallstead, is with her. Mr. Stockholm was also thrown from the wagon and considerably cut and scratched about the face but was able to return to his home the same day.
Uniondale – The Woman’s Suffrage Club will be entertained at the home of Mrs. Harry Coleman, Friday evening.
Susquehanna – Susquehanna Grange met on the evening of April 21. Following the regular business everyone told a humorous story. Then Sister Ada Jones gave some helpful hints on remodeling a house. The next meeting an interesting program on raising poultry will be given. Refreshments were served appropriate for Easter by Sisters Emma Wells, Nancy Bacon and Bro. Byron Robinson.
Kingsley – The Ladies’ Aid Society of the M. E. church will serve dinner at the residence of Mrs. Wm. Benning, on Wednesday, May 10. Ladies bring thimbles, as they are to tie a quilt.
Herrick – A. B. Tingley, one of the best known men of this place, died following an operation at Emergency hospital, Carbondale, April 20, 1916. He was born in Greenfield township, Lackawanna county, 76 years ago, the son of Benjamin Tingley, a pioneer of that section. When ten years of age he went to Harford and was educated in the school of that town. When 21 years of age he bought a farm in northern Herrick, which he soon sold and bought the farm where he has resided since 1869, the time of his marriage to Miss Julia Follett.
TWO HUNDRED YEARS AGO - from the Centinel. Montrose, Pa, of May 7, 1816. MARRIED –In this town, on Sunday last, by David Post Esq. Mr. Henry Eldridge, to Miss Susan Cook, daughter of Wm. Cook. ALSO New York, April 13. Captain Collins arrived at Boston in 43 days from Teneriffe, informs, that there was a fleet of transports at that place, bound to St. Helena, having on board the Frame of a Palace, to be erected for Napoleon Bonaparte. ALSO The legislature of Virginia, by unanimous vote, have requested of Judge Washington to have the late General and his wife confided to their charge, for the purpose of being interred near the capitol at Richmond, beneath a monument to be erected there at the expense of the State. In reply in the letter of “Governor Nicholas making this request, Judge Washington says—“Obligations more sacred than anything which concerns myself—obligations with which I cannot dispense, command me to retain the mortal remains of my venerable uncle, in the family vault where they are deposited. It is his own will and that will is to me a law, which I dare not disobey. He has himself directed that his body should be placed there, and I cannot separate it from those of his near relatives, by which it is surrounded. [George Washington died 14 Dec 1799 and was interred at Mt. Vernon, as requested in his will. In 1831 his remains and those of Martha and other family members were moved to a new tomb at Mt. Vernon, the old tomb being in disrepair.]
The criminal aggravated assault statute requires proof that a defendant caused or attempted to cause serious bodily injury to another person. Serious bodily injury has a specific definition under the Crimes Code, namely: “bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of any bodily member or organ.” When considering an aggravated assault charge where no actual serious bodily injury occurred, but the Commonwealth contends that an attempt to cause serious bodily injury occurred, the question becomes a little trickier for the jury. The ultimate decision depends upon the exact nature of the defendant’s conduct – not the injuries sustained by the victim.
Recently, in Commonwealth v. Phillips, the Superior Court considered this very question – extent to which a defendant’s conduct was sufficient to constitute an attempt to cause serious bodily injury sufficient to sustain an aggravated assault conviction. In that case, the victim was a 63-year old male. The victim left his residence to go walk his friend’s dog. When he returned home, the victim discovered his front door open. The victim then entered his house, retrieved his handgun, discovered the intruder and chased him out of the house. As the victim stepped onto his porch area, there was another intruder (defendant Arthur Philips) on the porch carrying an assault rifle.
The defendant demanded that the victim give him property belonging to the victim – and the victim refused. Despite both parties being armed, neither one raised their weapons at each other. The victim got into a physical struggle with the defendant over the assault rifle. During the struggle, the defendant lost the assault rifle and the defendant then attempted to get the victim’s handgun. The defendant punched the victim on multiple occasions trying to get the victim’s handgun. The defendant bit the victim repeatedly and continued to punch the victim. Eventually, the victim was able to fire a shot at the defendant, which missed, and the defendant continued to strike and hit the victim. The defendant then left the victim, grabbed his assault rifle and fled the scene. The victim attempted to fire a shot at the defendant as he fled but the victim’s gun had jammed.
As a result of the defendant’s assault, the victim sustained a broken right hand, several lacerations, and bite wounds to his hands, arms and shoulder. The jury convicted the defendant of aggravated assault – and other related charges – and the defendant was sentenced to a period of incarceration of 14 to 28 years. The defendant appealed the aggravated assault conviction and argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that he had caused or attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the victim.
The Commonwealth conceded that the victim had not suffered a serious bodily injury, but argued that the evidence demonstrated that the defendant attempted to cause serious bodily injury to the 63-year old victim. In response, the defendant argued that he was carrying a loaded assault rifle, which he never pointed or fired at the victim. The defendant argued that if he had intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim, he could have easily done so by shooting at the victim. Even after the struggle ended, the defendant retrieved his assault rifle and fled – but never attempted to fire any shot at the victim.
The Superior Court noted that an attempt to cause serious bodily injuries occurs when a defendant takes a substantial step toward causing a serious bodily injury to the victim – even if that serious bodily injury never actually occurs. The Superior Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict – the defendant was on the 63-year old victim’s porch with a loaded assault rifle, the defendant was menacing the victim and making demands that the victim turn over property, and the defendant then engaged in a lengthy and violent struggle with the victim that caused numerous bodily injuries to the victim, including a broken hand (which the victim admitted he had actually caused to himself during the course of the struggle). In short, the Superior Court stated simply: “The struggle over the weapon and the beating that [defendant] inflicted [on the victim], viewed together, demonstrate that [defendant] intended to cause serious bodily injury.”
Even though defendant never pointed his weapon at the victim, never fired a shot at the victim, and the initial struggle was initiated by the victim attempting to get the assault rifle from the defendant, the defendant was still guilty of aggravated assault based upon the totality of the nature of the struggle with the victim – and the myriad of bodily injuries sustained by the victim that, while not serious bodily injuries themselves, demonstrated sufficient intent to support the conclusion that the defendant was attempting to cause serious bodily injury to the victim.
Those scary TV drug ads
Steve came into the pharmacy and said to the pharmacist, “Those ads selling drugs on TV are really something. The side effects are worse than the disease it is treating. If there are so many side effects, why is the drug on the market?” You can't channel surf all these days without stumbling across drug ads featuring happy, peppy people, sunny days, vague claims and a quickly mumbled list of side effects. These ads are very expensive to produce and aim to distract you from the side effects as much as possible. Note: every drug has at least one side effect, whether it’s dizziness or death.
The pharmacist explained to Steve that, while the FDA gives drug companies free rein to produce commercials – and the only other country that produces drug ads for TV is New Zealand – there are a few rules the drug companies must follow. Know that there are 3 types of pharmaceutical ads – reminder ads, help-seeking ads, and product claim ads. Reminder ads give the drug's name but not the drug's use. If the drug is for sleep and they show a pillow, this implies the drug is for sleep and cannot be used in a reminder ad. Reminder ads must not say or suggest any benefit of the drug, or such things as who should take it. All reminder ads must mention the drug's brand name and generic name. A help–seeking ad describes a disease or condition but does not recommend or suggest specific drugs. For example. “Ask your doctor about seasonal allergies.” Period. A product claim ad names a drug, the condition it treats, and talks about both its benefits and risks. A product claim ad is a bit more complicated and usually takes 60 seconds, rather than the traditional 30. Why? Important side effects must be mentioned which can take half of the ad’s air time. An example of an incorrect product claim ad would be to feature a young girl which would misleadingly suggest that the drug has been approved for children, when actually it had not been.
You are also seeing more drug ads with drug companies spending approximately $5 billion a year, a figure that has tripled in the past decade. Again, why? There are many more billions to be made. Viagra, alone, has made $1.4 billion dollars for Pfizer. You can bet that any drug you see on TV is expensive and you will need prior authorization if you have insurance. And your insurance company will want you to use the tried-and-true generic drug first. Insurance companies balk at paying for an expensive new drug when a cheaper one will do. This increases medical costs because the newer drugs are more expensive, and patients are at greater risk because newer drugs have not been "road-tested.” In the case of Xarelto®, a new blood thinner, the company uses Arnold Palmer to hawk the drug and he ain’t cheap to hire. The old blood thinner warfarin (Coumadin®) has been on the market for 50 years and, thus, there are no surprise side effects like you might see with a new drug that has only been on the market for a year. That’s why companies have to do post-marketing studies to monitoring the safety of a drug or medical device after it has been released on the market to millions of people. Drugs have been pulled off the market because of severe side effects that showed up after the drug has been released to the public.
Doctor/patient time is also an issue. The consumer has seen a TV ad and the purpose of the drug is not well understood by the patient but the patient thinks he wants it anyway. Since, at best, doctors can give you 15 minutes of their time, it takes longer to dissuade a patient from wanting the drug, than to simply write a prescription for it so the patient can be on his way. This is a dangerous practice, especially with the newer drugs with which the doctor has not had much experience.
Upon learning how pharmaceutical ads are produced, Steve felt that he learned something about advertising and why drug costs are higher in the US than any other country on Earth.
Ron Gasbarro, PharmD is a registered pharmacist, medical writer, and principal at Rx-Press.com. Write him with any ideas or comments at ron@rx-press.com.
