Show CHI M MEl l j- j I T An f District J Judge 9 ig Bro Brown p Holds Contention of off f J 1 ft t f J. J State State VIV edical Medical f B Board it f- f Is s According to Law a 11 I Q L' L and d perpetual etu etu h I 1 forbidding fo four r Salt SaIt Lake chiropractors chiropractor J from pra practicing tic tic- i ing medicine in Ut Utah h until such I time as they are arc able ble 10 pass tb the medical examinations and receive re eive li licenses lit li- li censes from the state board oard of med t cal examiners examiner were issued toda y Judge J J. r. r Louis Brown of or the Third district co court rt The four are Nv AV H p JL Pyott F. F M M. A A Virgil Nelson Nel Nd son and Benjamin R 11 IV Johnson A fifth chiropractor pra tor tol J T. R fl IL Wl was wt also enjoined from tb he practice of his I pr lut t t Jl o la t s- s sn n tr ni nt he the lJ 5 state fe- fe fea a i Ia was ws agreed ed upon upon bY th the h court and aid the d defendants defendant's attorney phorney whereby he h may within el lX months move to ha have havethe havethe ye the Injun injunction to set aside an and make hl his for trial tria I ThE They Th-St Th st state te b board ard of medical ers ers was ers was as the pl In the thetas case cas and the In complaint nt ch charged th the defendants defendants defend defend- i ants with practicing medicine In Utah without a license The board asked Injunctive relief against the d i ants In tn each of the cases bases the court found the defendant had not lawfully been admitted t to the practice of medIcine medicine medicine med med- in Utah Ulah that he had been practicing practicing pra notwithstanding and receiving I compensation for f r his services from 1 patients that that by signs and advertisements advertise advertise- advertise j ments he had Invited the sick sik to seek seel treatment with him I IThe The conclusion of law drawn from I the facts fact by the court was that the acts of or the lh chiropractors chiropractor were contrary con con- t to law Jaw and that a permanent Injunction should shoula b be issued against I each ath o of the defendants efen ants |