| Show l rtPIf IUIICIJTI < O AN UITtmTIIIOT rr 1 I sJ aEC I J > Il I William Hartford Is I n doctor of lIe Osteopathtc school nnd holds forth In r I he tried before I Ogden Last week was r 1 Justice ot the Pence Terncs on n criminal J at crimi-nal charge brought under tile State I t I it medical law tile substance I of vshleh I H d 1 was that ho had trented ono Richard Thorburn for a sprained 1 nnkle had i 1 N I charged a fee therefor but had not taken out a license The complaint was j fi of the code founded on section 170 I r i f h which I I Is as follows 1 for 1 f r Any person practicing medlcln sur > ry or obstetrics within tills State it 1 gery I b1 without holding a lawful rise Icate or ij license er olhc r-ise onlrory to tile f provisions of this title shall bo settled ii It guilty of n misdemeanor 11I tll U 1 t f11 1 f The Justice of the peace acquitted the r j H defendant In a written opinion r floni Lt b which the following Is quoted H f1j It appears from the evidence that the defendant has been practicing I In I k il the 1 city 1 nf Ogden tint mlcnce known f 1 as Osteopath by manipulating rubbing J I rub-bing und kneading with the hands the I 1 t Injuted parts of flies who have applied 1 I to him for relief Tlie question now Is I whether or not the practice i of Osteopathy i Jt Osteo-pathy li the practice r medicine arid t In violation of the foregoing statute 1C so fI then defendant Is guilty na chaired he I I having admitted at the trli that ho I had taken out no license tw practice medicine It The whole question It was asrind ol bj respective I counsel hinges on the woid 1 t treat In fiction 1725 of the rctlerd t statutes of Utah IkJS which reads as r follows I 11 Any person shall be regarded an I 11 I proelllng mdlclno within the meaning or of this title who shall treat t operate upon or III prescribe I for any physical I Aliment 01 Another far 11 fev or who I shall hold hlell out by man 01 signs 1 curds advertisements or other dh r ii wise ajl fl physician or surgeon It Is a fundamental I principle of Ian tp 1 that penal lt statutes as against the prisoner pris-oner should bo consti ued strictly and In his flavor liberally This construction must however not be taken as against him a os Irlet or In his favor on IIhroloR to defeat the olnloua Intent of the Legislature If the language r > f a statute Is am II blguous vague or uncertain wo must try and ascertain the Intent of I lie il fWII rlorfl Legislature In the enactment I of It Sp with the section under which the complaint com-plaint In this came has been brought The prosecution claims that Inasmuch Q8 the Avon trol In 1 ascot In the see tlon referred to and that the defendant has been Riving tteattnent for the cure of the physical ailment of the Wittiest Thorburn that defendant must be guilty guil-ty of the offense charged The strict construction of this nee tloTho torl rth thtn appears to be that If any person tor n i fee without having first obtained t lie required license or certificate there for practice medicine by treating prescribing 1 pre-scribing or operating upon mankind for the euro of human ailment that he Is liable The legislative Intent In m > opinion was when they Inserted the word Ire 01 In the section that a person per-son should treat with icspect to modi One and drllgsprlblng drug and medicine and operating with surgical Instrument It certainly appears tram the evl dence In this case that ns rome of the 1 tnepIm Into termed It Iratnllnt wele ghen unit that nnnfpulauons were resorted to with the hand roM ro-M that nrh treatments fH withIn tile foregoing section would boo 10 a e Ue tho K who 1 Rlvo Turkish hallu ano in barbers Who Iront n rwrm hn1 4 ill tin If hands i < a mild 1lemnor To sum tit I naU rat I a miuat lh j Inlon that It tile dlndanl ha1 seal ur mplllyd drugs ur medicine In con aection with the treatments he gave belie wnuld be-lie Jlae but As It stands now I voul1a ve llable bo entirely devoid of justice to hold tin I defendant gulldtynt I therefore order that the defendant h and ho li I hereby dlicbarged and his bondsmen leased This arnme Involve rome questions thai In former rears have been the subject matte nl n goooll deal of nglta tlon In Utah and concerning which there Is still some tension The conservative con-servative and ncnilhte course the State board 01 medical examiners hOB pursued pur-sued hoB dome much 10 nllay the feelIng feel-Ing And apprhnlo that tile molIDI law created at the time of and sub seiuent to Its passage In Its present torm tot from lime to time cases Arise under the talllie concerning which there Is I a radical and widespread IIIl1erene 01 opinion Among the citizens of the State No doubt the Ogden case will prove to he 1 one of them Some citizens probably IncludIng Includ-Ing the mllcnl profession gn ernlly will Insist that osteu puThy Is J largely a fake vhoio object ob-ject li I to gull and swindle suffering humanity others will hold It to be a scientific and beneficial method of treatment Out 01 such conditions may raally urlso questions at public policy nnJ personal and constitutional I llbertv of the highest Importance The Nes Is I disposed to favor the medical law reasonably and sensibly administered It has been In force In Its present form nearly tour yearsand has been a protection to the public without with-out seriously Invading the personal liberties of any citizen either patient or pralllloner 01 tiny school or meet scientific or religious Tint so much can be said Is I largely duo to the wise policy of the medical board because the Hw Itself does not sufficiently guard against abuses At the same time the New Is Inclined In-clined to sustain Justice Tcrnos In discharging Hartford though there In I no denying the fact that n very liberal Interpretation of the statute had to be made In order to reach that result Hartford caso was one In which a line had 10 bo drawn somewhere and the Justice ot the peace in drawing that line nl the use ot drug medicines and Instruments came 10 0 conclusion that was probably about as sensible as the conditions admitted of though hIW Interpretation and application 01 the law may bo held open to question lie virtually layn down the rule thit 0 person who uses neither drugs mdl Ones nor Instruments la nol a medical practitioner lthln the meaning ot the law and therefore nateds 110 license Whether 0 higher court wOllld i sustain thhl rule Is a question but It might be well to give It a trial Should abuses arise under It It may ho I possible to correct them by amending the medical low |
