Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-12-15
MRS. SESSFORD NOT GUILTY
Decision of Judge Mills in Case of Alleged
Faith Curist.
In Opinion of the Court There Was
No Proof That Law Was
Violated.

Judge Mills, sitting this afternoon in
the United States branch of the Police
Court, dismissed the charge against Mrs
Bertha E. Sessford of practicing medi-
cine without having the license Of ply
sician.
The case was heard before Judge Mills
IN the 18th, 2Sth, Both and 31st of July last.
at which time the court took the case I'M
der Amusement.
The evidence submitted at the time
showed that Mrs. Sessford, who was known
as Christian scientist, was called to at
tend child named Owen, living on 9th
street southeast, who was at the time Ill OF
diphthefia. The child had been attended
for some days by a regular physician. but
it was claimed there was no Improvement
in the symptoms, and the physician was
discharged and Mrs. Sessford called in.
About this time the matter was reported
TO the health department, and DR.. John E.
Walsh went to the house to see that it
was properly fumigated and the health
regulations complied with. He found Mrs.
SeSsford in charge of the case, but did not
see her administer any medicine, nor, in
fact, do anything about the treatment of
the child. A day two after Mrs. SeSS-
ford was called in by the family the child
died. and the health department swore out
a warrant upon which Mrs. SeSSford'S case
was taken into court She was defended
Baker prosecuted the case for the gov
eminent
Judge Mills Comment.
In rendering his decision this afternoon
Judge Mills referred to the fact that the
case had been pending for a long time, and
that he had examined with care the au-
thorities presented by both sides in the
argument. The very fact that he had so
long to consider the matter, he said, found
him totally unprepared to render a lengthy
decision. The language of the act, which
was passed June ), 1896, under which the
prosecution was brought required. he said.
that physicians and surgeons should have
license before they could practice in the
District of Columbia, and prescribed pun
ishment for its violation.
The question. he said, was of vast i'm
pGrtance to the people of the District and
to persons who have the privilege of prac-
ticing medicine.
One of the sections of the act. he cited,
prescribed that no one should either prac-
tice medicine or profess to do so without
the prerequisite of license and a violation
of the law carried with it the penalty of a
fine not less than $50 nor more than $780,
or Imprisonment in Jail for not less than
ten nor more than ninety days.
A Fact Concealed.
1t is conceded. he said, that the defend
ant was not a licensed physician, and that
she had no certificate and no right to prac-
tice medicine.
The only testimony on that point was
that of DIR. Walsh, which was not con-
troverted, that the defendant had adj
mitted to him that she was in sole charge
of the patient and was not a registered
physician.
The statute said Judge Mills. will have
to be construed in accordance with the
plain meaning of the act and 1t would
not do to go outside of the law. He read
from several authorities to show that q
-, fr,to ho LODI
the language of the statute, and that the
accused was entitled to any doubt that
there was as to her liability under the
law. There had, he said, been absolutely
no proof that she had violated the law
and he, therefore, dismissed the complaint
Mrs. Sessford was not in court when
the case was decided, but was represented
by counsel