St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-10-23
DOCTORS DID 1T.
Of Course the State Board Con
yicted the Advertising Doctors

Of Course the State Board Con-
victed the Advertising Doctors.
In view of the evidence, it was alto
gether surprising that the state board
found Drs. Blair and Hutton guilty;
but it was not surprising that board
of old-ine doctors should do so. The
real offense was in being successful
through advertising, and that could not
be forgiven bysthe o1dIiners.
After an unsuccessful attempt to get
together yesterday morning, the state
medical board eassemb1edin the senate
chamber of the capitol Yesterday after
noon at l O'clock to resume the hearing
of the case ofDrS. Blair. of Minneapolis.
andyItutton. of St. Paul. w. f. Gil
more, an itinerant druggist who has
roamed all over the United States dur
ing the past two Years, was the first
witness callet to the stand. He testi-
fled that at the request of DR.. Sweeny
he had visited DR.. Hutton and that Dr.
Hutton had representedehimself as DR.:
S. j. SIlatiday. of .ThiePs detective
agency, testified that he=iiad repeatedly
addressed DR.. Hutton as DIR. Mccoy
and had never been corrected.
Or. Blair took the stand, and testified
that he had never led people to suppose
that he was DR.. Mccoy; that he may
not have corrected them always OH their
first visit, but that his patients were
never allowed to remain in error rs to
his true identity.
Dir. SWeeny announced that owing to
his connection as secretary of the board,
he would take no part in the boards
deliberations.
George Heiser, clerk of the West
hotel. i'll Minneapolis; Squier Wooten,
a bell boy, and Jacob Ickle, the barber,
were witnesses for the accused, DR..
Blair. They testified that he was well
known about the hotel as DIR. Blair;
that his cards bore the name of Blair,
and that he had cup i'll the barber
shop marked Blair"
Dir. Ilutton'S testimony was earnest
and clear. lie testified that he had
never, by act or word. led any one to
suppose that he was DIR. Mccoy; that
nobody had ever addressed him as Nc.
Coy: that he had not known till he came
here that Mccoy was debarred from
practicing in Minnesota; that he had
never been guilty of unprofessional
conduct. Iieshad negotiated with the
firm Of Blair d Mccoy, and knew that
Mccoy was in New York perma-
nently. He was paid a salary for
maintaining the st. Paul Office,
and about once in three days paid all
receipts to the firms business agent.
He had never opened mail addressed to
DIR. Mccoy. but had sent it to the Mill
neapolje office. He considered the Nc
Gov sl stem of treatment the best in ex-
istence. lie had never read the adver-
tiSements, and did not know that any
one supposed Dr.. Mccoy was in st.
Paul personally. but it was his method
OF treatment that was used. DR.. Hut
toms testimony was very emphatic. and
was totally mistaken by croSS-eXamina-
ton.
James Compton, of Fergus Falls.
United States surveyor general, and
Judge Williams testified to having
known Hutton for years. and that his
reputation for truth and veracity was
good.
S. o. Goldman, the usher in Hulton's
office. testified that he had received pa
tients, anu that nobody had ever. in his
hearing. addressed Hutton as Mccoy.
Hutton had never represented himself
as Mccoy. Witness had never seen Gill
more or Halliday in the Office.
The board retired to the ante-room,
but returned in few moments to hear
the argument OF the counSels. Daniel
w. LAWYER waived technicalities, and
opened the argument very briefly. Judge
Rea. in summing UP the evidence, char
acteriZed it as the flimsiest he had ever
heard. He said that the only detective
who had put the point blank question
to DIR. Blair, Are you Dr.. McCoy?"
had received an emphatic mo, am
Dr. Blair" There had been not one
of the 400 patients treated III the offices
who had made complaint of any descrip-
ton; that there was no evidence TO
show that DR.. Blair or DR.. Hutton had
ever represented himself as DR.. Mccoy.
or tried to deceive any one. After pay
ing warm tribute to DR.. Blair's pro-
fessional ability and gentlemanly con-
duct, Judge Rea closed his argument.
After retirement the board returned
the s uprising verdict of guilty as
charged. The licenses of the two doc
tors are revoked. but stay of twenty