The Jersey City news., 1901-12-30
MRS. SUTRo'S SUIT
Explanation Of the Issues and The
JUDGES Decision.
New York. Dec. 26.


TO the Editor of 'The Jersey City News. Z
AS the recent reports in the newspapers
about a little suit brought against me by
man by the name of Ward for alleged
treatment" may have misled the public,
1 desire to make the following brief ex-
planation:-
The question involved in this matter is
not and was not whether the small sum
Of 500 should be paid this man, but
whether person holding himself out
fraudulently as a doctor or physician (this
fraud not being known to me until after
/ had ceas sed my visits to him, and my
husband not knowing anything about the
whole affair until this man began suit,
should be allowed TO continue his impo-
sitions on the public and recover for all
legged services rendered under such a false
guise. The decision. today Of Judge
Joseph in my favor settled the matter
1t is true that ] promised to pay this
man. but this was all done during the
time that l did not know of the impo-
sition which he had practiced upon me.
He inspired confidence for the very reason
that he claimed to be a minister of the
Gospel in addition, and spoke Of the many
cures he had made. There was no such
thing as promising to recommend him an
equivalent for his Treatment I paid
him in full for his services and it was
only in response to his persistent so,icita-
ton that I went back to him, and the
agreement was then made for a second
course of treatment that he would NOT
charge me anything unless he was euc-
cessful in the cure. I told him that II
he was successful (Which, of course.
turned out not to be the case). would
gladly pay him and recommend him to
my friends; I need not say that this was
not done in a single instance, as never
introduced him nor even mentioned his
name to anyone.
The newspapers have all spoken of the
least important matter in this suit name
", whether there was an agreement about
paying this man or not. whether he had
benefited me or not, etes all Of which
matters were left out OF the case The
case was submitted to the court on the
only important question involved therein,
whether the man was guilty of a crime
in posing as doctor or physician and
practising as he did without license,
diploma or registry, Only for these last
mentioned reasons did my husband, and
I even more than he, consider it a mat
ter Of public duty to submit to the un-
pleasant publicity which this case mas
entailed, not to speak OF the time. trouble
ant annoyance which it has necessarily
cost my husband and for which ten
times the trifie Of so or $50 for which the
suit could have been settled, would not
have compensated him.
If others who have had similar expert
ences would pursue our coutse, there
would soon be an end to all practice by
charlatans and impostors in this country,
WHO, owing to the comp;aisance Of the
public, ply their trade without let or
hindrance, in violation Of law ana against
public interest. II is the fear Of unpleas =
ant publicity and Misrepresentation on
the part of the victims which enables
such men to continue in practice, be-
cause they know that their patients,
will not allow themselves to be sued and
would rather pay, any price than 50 into
court; and the reporters OF the press who
do not often see the true gist Of liti-
CATION, usually place these matters in
such false light that II rather adver-
tises than Injuries such fellows as this
man Ward.
Mrs. THEODORE sIJrRo.
(Sued as Florence G. sutrp.)