The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1914-07-02
Court Holds Practitioner Is Culpable on Three
 Counts
COURT THROWS OUT
 OTHER CHARGES
Finding Is One of Interest to Doctors Throughout
 the State

Arthur George Jones, a dentist with offices in the Read building. is found guilty on three counts of "engas1ng in the practice of dentistry without complying with the state statute gov erning same in a decision handed down by Judge Thomas c. Coughlin af today's city court session fine of s25 and costs is imposed on each count.
 pr. Jones is found not guilty of per- forming dental operations. as oharged under the first, fifth and sixth counts of the complaint Attorney Robert e. fDeForest, of counsel for the defense, lEave notice of an appeal and bonds were fixed at S20o-
 The finding has attracted wide att stentton- not only locally and among dentists but from professional men frFrbugho11t the state At the hearing, County Health Officer George E- Hill and former City Attorney Thomas M fCullinan appeared for the prosecution while Attorneys J. B. Klein, Robert G.. lLeForest and D.J. Brennan were coun- iseI for the defense. Judge Coughlira's s decision reads as folloWs-
 T ind the accused not guilty of per forming dental operations as charged under the first, fifth and sixth counts of said information
 Under the second, third and fourth counts of said information the accused ds charged with engaging in the prac- lffce of dentistry without having first obtained a license to practice dentis- bfry from the dental commissioner of isafd state he not being a. person who was engaged in the practice of d,entis- 4ry and who registered as a dentist in ifhsss- state prior to December. 19O2s REainst the peace and contrary to the Btatute in such case made and pro- Fvided-
 s@rghe accused has placed in evidence Ia certain agreement which purports to Ehow that an honest effort was made eby him to comply with the laws of the state relating to the practice of dsn- hisfry A careful reading of said agreement leaves no doubt in my mind but that said agreeme lent was drawn Gor no other purpose than to evade the provisions of said act.
 Under the terms of said agreement it can not be said that the office which F1vaS maintained by the accused was t1he office of Dr. P. Kumpitsch, bu: on the other hand, pr. Kumpitsch as- sumed no obligations whatever and l4he conduct of the business and the responsibility of paying all the bills rested upon the accused and also, un- der the terms of said agreement, he was obliged to pay Dr. Kumpitsch $40 Eper week from the income of the busi- hess even though said income did not lreach said sum of $40 per week
 t The accused, in Justification of his bcondHct, swore that he was legally ad- svised that he had compiled with the Jaw in this respect and that he fully fbelieved that his conduct was not a violation of any law whatever. While. tthe accused has been guilty Of vioIat- ling the statutes of the state of Connec- Fffeut concerning the Practice of Den itistry, it does not appear that he is incompetent to practice the profession n0r that he lacks a considerable knoWl- ledge of dentistry.
 This aforesaid agreement, supported iRs 1t is by other evidence of the acts Fnf the accused, in writing letters in which he refers to himself as a pro- Eressive dentist and advertising in the tpress and having his name printed Jas pr. A. c. Jones' and in holding Himself ont to the public as a duly aqualf6ed dentist, compe1s this court ito find that he has embarked in the Identa1 profession, that he has held Himself out as duly qualified den- stist, that he has advertised and offer Jed to practice as such and that his acts, are calculated to deceive the pub Hic and are in violation of the statute dn such eases made and provided.
 T therefore find the accused guilty Fss charged in the second, third and fourth counts of the incarnation and ihe is ordered to pay a fine of $25 and scosts on each count