Show Laws Intent in i Cases CasesI I Argued u I STRICT I I J RULING HUUN W U l D DAR CHIROPODY H I R r l Medical Profession H Held ld to Have Used Solons for Selfish Ends When S Statute Was Was' Enacted I A ARGUMENTS A in the cases of oft t five Salt Lake chiropractors I whom the state board of of- medical I examiners is prosecuting under a I I state statute were made mad today before before be be- 1 i 1 I fore District Judge J. J Louis Brown Ogden H Hiles les counsel l for the board i I emphasized the ruling of the supreme su supreme su- su preme preme court court court- against chiropractics act e. e He I asserted a a ph physician Is not not one who I I. only administers drugs Mr i Hiles Interpreted the Utah statute to mean I that so long as a chiropractor was following his wo work k wl with ti the th the view of I off being paid he was violating the law I although such such Dr practice without re reI rep j jj j t I could coul not be construed as asi ash i forbidden within the law The prosecution prosecution prose- prose I II cution made a reservation in the A. A I S. S Ash case as there was a doubt as asto asto t to whether Ash Ash was was carrying on chiropractics as a business y I ARGUE INTENT OF LEGISLATURE James W W. V. V McKinney counsel In the I IVirgil Virgil A A. Nelson case and A A. B B. IrVIne IrVine Irvine Ir- Ir Vine attorney for W. W VH H. H Pyott 1 F F. M. M I j and Benjamin R R. Johnson based their arguments on the Intent I j of the legislature in adopting the I medical statute Attorney McKinney l declared the i ionly only evidence against his client Nelson Nelson Nelson Nel Nel- son was submitted by one one Van VanMeter I Meter who was a spy and had no I ailment whatever when he visited Dr l i Nelson The attorney interpreted the state law to be directed against operations operations operations oper- oper j I of or quacks was wasso I Iso so simple he said that if it the state I medical law were were construed to forbid It the work worl of f a chiropodist could be inhibited on the same theory Attorney Irvine referring to the medical statute said saidI I 1 am of ot the opinion the medical al men themselves I wrote this statute and that the legislature legislature legislature legis legis- lature was misled by the selfish purposes purposes purposes pur pur- poses of the physician and surgeon lie declared the face fac of ot the statute I showed there were were special privileges the medical I QUESTION OF DEFINITION I I I I I I i I III I Attorney Irvine submitted definitions definitions defini defini- of or surg surgeon on and nd physician from rom the highest m medical au authority and I Websters Webster's dictionary to show that the chiropractor Is la not holding himself out outto outto I Ito I to be either in his advertisements or I II I otherwise Neither medicinal nor surgical surgical sur sur- sur-I sur I treatment was Included In chiro chiro- practice the defense argued Defining I surgery Attorney Irvine declared that If was surg surgery ry under the thc I statute then thim every dentist in the state I Is violating the law and the chiropodist Is breaking the law The fhe decision In in the trials will have an important Imp b bearing on the Urn future of ot this practice in Salt Lake and nd Utah The fight between the state board of medical examiners and chiropractors chiropractors' came came cameto to a clim climax x last year when a restraining Injunction against the chiropractors was denied IThe The complaints In the cases now in incourt court wt were re sworn to in 1917 and the board of oC medical examiners is prepared to proceed on twelve additional complaints complaInts complaints com com- I I plaints against local chiropractors should the present trial result in eon con con |