Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-03-20

efts remarked TO me II have pulled
bigger teeth than ever you did"
Mr.. EmmonB--"That was horse teeth"
This reply was evidently quite an un-
expected explanation to the witness and
also to the audience who we're oonvulsed
With laughter. This was not bit dimin-
ished ~ DR.. Roberts handed around
gauiy cards with his picture showing
him pulling tho testh of o horse.
Hare DR.. Jones took the prosecution in
hand, had the salient points OF the trou-
blasome advertisements read, also the
oards and reminded the court OF the teeth
that were seen lying around the floor, the
syringe and dental tools.
Mr.. Emmons TO the oourt-"Do you
think there Ia anything in this-has any
thing hten proven squire2"
~ think the State has not shown that
DR.. Roberts has drawn tooth"
Mr.. EmmonB-"It strikes me that
thGro has bean no primR facie case mndo
ont" Counsel then proceeded to give his
definition OF what a dentist is according
to statute.
DIR. Woodward was then sworn. He
graduated at the Pennsylvania Dental
College two or three years ago. He had
complied with all the requirements of the
Delaware law. He is employed by DR..
Estsbrooke, the owner OF the preparation
which is local ap@sthetio. DR.. RobertI
Is employed as advertising agent. The
! witness does all tine operating. Roberts
is not Q dentist for human teeth. The
room where operating was carried on was
my room, not DR.. Roberts. My room is
the general Office. 1t was there DR..
Jones was received. Robarts had re-
Nu1 u1faI San 10, AI,n . l..-
Tbs witness continued: ~ look TO DIR.
Estebrooke for pay. DR.. Roberts simply
advertised the remedy. The purpose of
coming here WAS to introduce the anpi-
thetio and letters were sent to the dentists
in good faith. To those that ask him
DIR. Roberts tells them he ia not the
! dentist. His pay comes from money l
collect in operations. All the foroeps
are mine. am tbs agent in this business
here, though both OF US have right to
sell territorial rights"
| DIR. Jones--' ID ootor, II you render
service, how is it that DR.. Robsrts' n ,me
appears in the advertisements as an
operator ~
DR.. Woodward was yisibly distressed
as he replied: ~ suppose that is one OF
the main slips that occurred with the
pen"
"Your card says also that Roberts ia
demonstrstor with you?"
DR.. WoOiward-"I would have been
better if : hore DR.. Woodward was again
alfected)-I am young man in the pro
fession-l am sorry, DR.. Jones, man
old in the profession of your experience
should attempt - -"
Squire Bertolatte interrupted cdr
l Ia ohn
against you, the main question is to sec
whether Roberts has made himself amen
able to the state enactment"
Another patient, n Mr. Plerson was
next sworn. His testimony divulged moth.
ing new other than that DIR. Roberts
handed him glass of water during or
after tho operation. "Robsrts was oaly
q water carrier" the witness sd ded.
MIR. Emmona then pleaded that there
was no proof but the newspaper state
menta and tho alleged conversation be-
tween DIR. Jones aud DR.. Roberts. He
thought that the action of Robarts and
Woodward showed good faith with the
public. The first thing they did on their
arrival here was to invite dentists to come
and ses them. There hos been wrong
impression in the paper, I'll admit. But
wno has been hurt?
DIR. Roberts was in his way operating
in the Olaytol 6ouse-no. as dentist,
but as an Advertising agent. While the
public may have got wrong impression,
certainly tho patients did not. MIR. EN-
mons thought the pablo ought to UNDER
atand, in reference to the remedy itself,
that every dentist in the city was asked
to oome and investigate for themselves.
And yet this state board furnished DR..
Woodward certificate to practice aud
use Tie ramcdy. II there in any fault
with the remedy it is-it does not lie
with us,
This, believe, Is really direct prose-
cution or persecution OF this remedy in
the paperj-Rll the papers of the oity
saying this psrson and that person is
eiok. DE. WD0dWard's diploma was suf-
ticieut.
DR.. Jones attempted to remcnstvats
onca or twice at oounsel'g rakinE nrraign-
ment OF the profession and endeAYored
to explain that tle board does not say
with what mathods dentist shall prso-
tice, and that the board had nothing to
do with che remaGy.
II think," continued Mr.. Emmons,
"there can be but one disposition of this
case DIR. Roberts ia a stranger and
sholld not be sent up TO court. / ask
that the cass bs d:smissed"
DIR. JEFF sris in referring to what coun-
sci had said in regar 4 to the le tRi defini-
tion OF dentist said it ia for the examin-
ing beard to define who is aud who is
not dentist. Long ago anyone who
put up a sign might call himself den.
tist. Under & iHst construction of the
later law DIR. k0b9rts had been acting
illegally.
Squire Bertolette in considering tho
case said thsra existed no charge against
DIR. Woodward. DR.. Roberts has made
himself liable under the law for the pro-
lection Of the pubIio. The question ID
did he cause tbs public to CONS to his
Office under tha supposltion thai he was
a Eesponaible dentist. Now If this Law
was passed for anything It's general spirit
was directed towards tho protection OF
the public.
At this moment DR.. Jeffsris asked per-
mission to make statement.
Mr. Emmons objected, giving the
reason that tho Stale was not represented
by counsel.
Squire Bertolette then said he would
leavs the settlement of the question to a
higher court and required Or. Roberts
to enter bail in $500 for The higher court.
DIR. Roberts furnished the necessary
ball. II Was understood that Immediately
after the trial Drs. Roberts and Wocd.
ward left for Trenton, N. j. 1t was
stated that DR.. Woodward proposes re.
turning here in a weeks time, and will
locate here for regular practice.
Farm House burned.
CHEsTERrJwN, MD, March l3. The