The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-08-31
Dentist Atwood Throws the
Gauntlet, Which Is
Quickly Taken Up.
He Refused to Serve a Lady
Who Was Wearing Bicycle
Costume.
Wherefore Mrs. Kirk Moves to Garry
Delicate Question of Ethics
Into Court.

MIS-. annie klrk mas at least TWO SUITS
that suddenly assume an interest likely
to become international. One consists
partly of boomers, the other is an action
for $3.50 damages brought by her against
W. A Atwood. The two suits are closely
connected. But for the first the second
would never have appeared to gladden. the
heart of man. From any thrill of pleasur-
able emotion, however, the Atwood heart
is, of course, excepted. w. S. Kirk also
figures as a plaintiff, but as he does not
wear boomers and is mere hus band his
place Is somewhere outside this simple
tale.
Atwood is dentist. He professionally
tames the raging molar, exercises the
pang that Frances deep in the cavities of
the jaw, asks with tender concern after
iabbing sore nerve "Did it hurt?' and
in all ways 80 far as documents set forth,
deports himself as dentists have ever done,
and ever will do. world without end.
1t befell that Mrs. Kirk needed some
work done. whether bridge. crown,
plate or simple filling does not appear.
and wouldn't make any difference there if
it did. At any rate she went to DR.. At
wood. and he, looking with horror
stricken gaze upon her, pointedly refused
to attend to her, giving as a reason that
she was wearing a bicycle costume, to wit,
boomers. Possibly the thought occurred
to him that the lady was wearing this
costume not only ito wit" but to WOO.
He could not be induced to see the error of
Kirk, and she left his Office indignant, the
degree of her indignation being later meas
ured in set legal terms and the mention of
an amount OF cash that would be accept
able.
The complaint Is long, and reeks with
the verbiage that means nothin. but
WEAKNESS to the flesh, but it AYERS plainly
enough that at the "said time and place
she was attired in bicycle costume, and
said defendant then and there gave as
pretended reason (for refusing his SER
vlces), in the presence of strangers, in
spiteful. cOntemptuous and insulting
manner and words addressed to plaintiff,
y his said refusal that he would
render her no service agreed on because
she was so attired."
DR.. Atwood was asked about this. The
affair seemed to be distasteful to him, and
in the nature of surprise. He is COM
paratively young man. and not only has
the aspect of one able to care for himself,
but Is happy in the protection of Mrs. At
wood, who stays at the Office, and, as the
doctor says, is at least listener at every
interview to which a lady patron is a party.
Nevertheless, the gentleman says it was
self-protection that caused him to with
hold from Mrs. Kirk the ministration
sought. He has large family practice,
including maids and matrons. What if
one Of these had come in, somewhat dis
traught from toothache, anyhow, and
with the hypercritical eye of sufferer
had spied bicy cle female in his chair?
Why, that person would have fed. Not
even the presence of Mrs. Atwood could
have stayed the flight At least such is
the doctors idea. He did not explain
what there is SO fearsome about a pair of
boomers, but on the point that in the
Atwood operating chair they have no
place his mind was Gear. He denied,
also. that he had used the sort of language
ascribed to him by Mrs. Kirk, but said
he had sought to make another appoint
ment with her, affording her ample time
to assume raiment BETTING the solemnity
of the dental ordeal.
Instead of listening to his overtures she,
according to him, hounced out with a
show of not being pleased. He says
further that no strangers were present,
that nobody but his wife was there. So
when the great suit of Kirk VS.. Atwood
comes to trial there will have to be some
adjudication of matters of fact as we'll as
OF law and the more delicate question of
ethics, but upon the ethics will center the
common interest. 1t is TO be determined
whether a woman with a defective tooth
has right TO wear boomers, and whether
q dentist, duly and righteously armored
forceps and weapons equally deadly, is
justifiable in shying at bloomers as a
country colt SHES at first intimacy with a
cabe-car.