Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-06-22
THE EVENING STAR,
DOCTOR WITHOUT LICENSE
CHARGES BEFORE P6IIcE COURT
AGAINST CHALMERS PRENTICE.
Alleged That He Violated a Law Of
the Di.trict-JuaiIasse Re-
serves Decisfohni.

Chalmers Prentice of 1871 Binney street
northwest was placed on trial before Judge
Scott this morning on a Charge preferred
by the board of medical supervisors of the
District, of practicing medicine without a
license. 1t was alleged that Dr. Prentice
had been engaged in Washington during
the past few months in treating various
diseases through the application of diff
ferent grades of glasses and spectacles to
the eyes of his patients 1t was held by
Prosecuting Attorneys >Mullowney and Cor
don that DR.. Prentice was rendering medi-
cal service to persons in the District clear
ly within the prohibitive limits of the law,
while Attorney Henry E. Davis, counsel
for the defendant, held that there was no
law under which his client could be held
Judge Scott Reserved Decision in the
Case.
H. C. Sargent took the stand and testified
that he had been treated by DR.. Prentice
for deficient eyesight. Witness stated that
he had suffered from headache and nerv-
BUSINESS, and that under DR.. Prentices
treatment, directed solely at the eyes, he
had been considerably relieved.
Mrs H. c. Sargent said that while in
bad health generally, she had talked with
the defendant and that he had suggested,
after questioning her concerning the condi-
ton Of her eyes, that she should wear a
pair Of glasses prescribed by him.
DR.. George H. Shoulders said he knew
that DR.. Prentice claimed to be a doctor.
According to my understanding he de-
clared 1.-The defendant claims to relieve
most nervous troubles of the human sys-
tenn by the application of eyeglasses. OF
course, this includes great many diseases
and might embrace consumption or cancer,
for instance. 1 never heard of him ad-
ministering drugs and never saw him pre-
scribe any. He is the author of two diff
ferent works on medicine to which he signs
himself as M. d."
DR.. WOodward's Statement.
Health Officer Woodward stated that he
was acquainted with the defendant Dr.
Prentice, he testified, had come to him and
talked informally about being admitted to
practice in the District under authority
of a license. He claimed he had practiced
in London" continued DR.. Woodward, land
also said he had been practitioner in sew
eral states Of this country. When uues-
toned, however, he expressed his unwil-
lingness to undergo an examination to prac-
tice legally here. He subsequently called
upon the District Commissioners, but was
not granted a license"
Charles l.. Pullman testified that he had
met the defendant in London in 1892 when
the former was treated by the latter for
diabetes. This treatment, he said, had
been rendered mainly through the agency
of the eyes. Dr. Prentice had felt his
pulse witness stated, but had administered
no drugs. Subsequently, Mr.. Pullman said
he was treated here by the same method
for nervousness. {"
Caleb S. Miller said he had suffered from
defective hearing and that DR.. Prentice had
treated him for that ailment by cutting
muscle Of his eye with what looked to him
like pair Of scissors. He had not paid
any fee for this operation. however
Anna NJ. Little said she knew DR.. Prem
tice and James H. Claggett reported to the
court conversation he had overheard at
the Savoy fiat between the defendant and
a clerk, in which the former had explained
his method of treatment.
]. NJ. Paxton testified that DIR. Prentice
had suggested that he wear a pair Of
glasses for an ailment from which he was
a sufferer Frank NJ Boteler and Dr.
Prentice had given him a pair of glasses to
relieve him Of nervousness. He did not
prescribe any other remedies, however.
Views of COUNSEL.
In summing up the case Attorney Davis
cited several decisions and laws bearing on
the subject Of unlicensed medical practice
and declared that there was nothing with
in the Meaning Of the statutes upon which
a conviction could be based.
Prosecuting Attorneys Mullowny and
Gordon held that DIR. Prentice had no au-
thority under the law to represent himself
as a doctor. They contended that If the
defendant felt competent to practice hds
theories he should comply with the law,
and take the examination required of all
licensed physicians in the District. They
held that cutting the muscles of the eye as
stated In the testimony, clearly constituted
operation. If performed by the defendant,
was done so in violation Of the statute.
Judge Scott indicated that he would rem
der his decision next week.