The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1903-07-16

The ruling of the board eliminates
from consideration the question or
whether Gray was guilty of Irma
Browns murder The board holds,
however that all the incidents leading
up to ITma Browns death can be pre-
sented as tending to show that DR..
Gray was guilty of immortality and I'M
professional conduct.
The morning session of the board
commenced at about 1890. Dr. Gray
was present, having arrived this morn
ing from Garden City. His attorney.
who defended him in the murder trial
and secured his acquittal, A w. Mars
ton, OF Chicago, was present, as was
also A. L. Redden, of Topeka, who was
retained by the defense Wednesday af-
ternoon.
The state was represented by AS
sistant Attorney General Pestana and
Attorney Brown, who has been retained
by Garden City parties interested in the
case, presumably the relatives of Irma
Brown, who are said to be trying to
drive DR.. Gray out of the state
When the hearing commenced DR.
ID: T. Cook. of Clay Center, chairman
OF the board. was absent. and Dr. G. F.
president Later, DR.. Cook came in,
and took his chair
Since the trial of the Meffert case the
personnel of the board has changed
somewhat. Dr. E. B. Packer, of Usage
City, is no longer chairman. The mem
bers are DR.. G. F. Johnson of Lakin, DR..
D. p Cook of Clay Center, DR.. e. B.
Packer of Usage City DR.. F. p Hat
field of Grenola, DR.. o. F. Lewis of
Hepler, DIR. n. L. Jones of Norton. and
DR.. T. E. Rains of Concordia. DR..
Lewis 4s secretary.
CHARGES AGAINST GRAY
There were five charges in the origi-
follows:
A. immortality and unprofessional con-
duct.
B. Use of drugs. rendering him in
competent to discharge the duties of his
profession.
c. Adultery with one Mary Reming-
ton.
D. Murder of Irma Brown by GRIM
inal operation.
E. Perjury at trial for murder of
Irma Brown.
After the board had been called to or
der IN the same room at the state house
which was used recently for the hear
ing of the evidence in the Dewey case.
Judge Redden filed a motion to strike
out charges B and c insofar as they re-
lated TO any acts committed prior to
March % 1901, when the act creating
the board was passed. The same motion
objected to the consideration of any of
the charges for the reason that if he
should be declarep to have forfeited his
license, he would be deprived OF property
contrary to law The motion was over
DEFENDANTS OBJECTION FILED.
Now comes the respondent and objects
to the board considering any matter
charge or allegation against him under
the accusation and charge headed B.
that relates to or refers to any act or
purported act of respondent prior to the
passing of the law creating this board,
to wit, March %, 1901, for the reason
that to consider such acts and to at
tempt to revoke the license of this re-
spondent by reason thereof would be
making and causing said act to be an
ex post facto law. and would be in VIC
/ lation of paragraph 10 of article / of
the constitution of the United States
which provides mo state snail pass
any ex post facto law
The respondent further objects to the
board considering any matter. allega-
/ ton or charge referred to under charge
headed CO. tcat has occurred OF al
| legged to Rave occurred prior to the pas
sage of the act ting this board, to
wit. March %. 1901. and moves the board
not to consider any such allegation or
charge for the reason that the same
would be giving an effect to the law
creating this board and under which it
is now acting, that of an ex post facto
law.
/ The respondent objects to this board
considering any of the charges made
j against him for the reason that re-
I spondent has a vested interest in prop
| erty, to- wit, the right to practice medi-
/ cine in the state of Kansas. in that he
was engaged in such practice, being a
/ graduate of a regularly created medical
| college in good standing, to-wit, Rush
! Medical College of Illinois, and engaged
1 in the practice of his profession in the
state of Kansas. prior to the passage of
| said law, and has been duly licensed to