Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1917-11-01
CH|R0PRAC1OR IS PHYSICIAN
Jury So Decides and Brings in
Verdict against F. C. Kaatz.
County Court Disposes Of Hard Fought
Case-Dccision Says Chiropractor
Must Have License to Prac.
tice In Vermont.

u,
with advertising and practicing chiro
practic. with an Office in the Y. M. C. A
building in this city, without having {
license to practice under the laws of tn,
State. The case has occupied the attention
Of the court since Monday afternoon
Something Of surprise was given tn,
spectators in court yesterday morning
when. Rt the close of the evidence In
troduced by the State, about II 20 o'clock
the lawyers Of the respondent. after 9
short conference, announced that the de
fence would rest its case without calling
any witnesses. Just previous to this move
oil the part Of the defence, the respondent:
attorneys had introduced a motion for 9
direct verdict. which had been refused.
The case went to the Jury at AIS yester.
day afternoon. The jury was out only
about Is minutes. The verdict was de.
livered by the foreman. H. c. Humphrey
Of this city.
No less than II witnesses were in.
troduced yesterday morning by the State
most OF them being persons who had taker
the treatment Of the chiropractor, Frank
c. Kaatz The first witness to take the
stand yesterday morning was Emery Mills
OF North Winooski avenue. who testified
, to receiving treatment at the office OF
feet. He said that the latter difficulty had
been removed after few treatments.
Major Harry A. Leonhauser. command
ant at the University of Vermont was
the second witness called. His testimony
also conferred about the treatments which
he had received at the Office of the re-
spondent. He said that he was familiar
with the method of treatment carried out
by the art Of chiropractic. Both he and
! his wife had visited the office of the re-
spondent and had received treatment
which had helped them. Later Kaatz
had gone to the quarters of the major
and given treatment to both himself
and his wife. Major Leonhauser gave
somewhat the same description Of the
methods used in chiropractic as that
given by DR.. Beecher in previous testi-
mony. He also said that no medicine
was given or prescribed and that the
methods Of treatment were entirely differ
ent from those of regular physician
| or surgeon. Florence w. Leonhauser,
wife Of the major, took the stand and
gave practically the same testimony as
her husband.
Leona Henry. Linda Egant. Lizzie Bar
rett and E. w. Henry. all Of Underhill,
testified to visiting the office of the re-
spondent in this city and receiving treat
ment by him. They also had been helped
, by the treatment. Mrs. Catherine Hall
/ Of this city was another one Of the
!, chiropractor's patients who testified. MIR.
Henry said that his wife had been relieved
Of serious pains through the adjustments
made by the respondent.
Lewis B. Martin of Barre, secretary
Of the State board Of osteopathic regis
tration and examination since 1907 tes-
titled that the name OF the respondent
does not appear on the records of regis
tration of osteopaths in the State. DR..
w. 5. Nay OF Jericho. secretary Of the
Vermont State board Of medical regis
tration since its organization in 1904, tes-
titled that the name of Frank c. Kaatz
does not appear on the records of this
organization. as being registered as a ply
stefan or surgeon within the State. Mr..
Martin was given detailed cross-exam-
nation by Attorney Hartwell of the de-
tense relative to the subjects in which
, the applicants for licenses as registered
physicians and surgeons in the State must
Qualify. The attorney also read a list
OF subjects peculiar to chiropractic and
, asked the witness II an applicant for
n license to practice as physician or
surgeon within the State had to qualify
in those subjects. The witness did not
think so, with the exception Of anatomy
and physiology.
DR.. E. a. Heath Of Winooski testified
to treating Mrs. Henry Hall Of this city
and OF going to the Office of the re-
spondent with her at one time when she
received treatment there He told of
the method OF treatment and answered
several questions relative to the impor-
lance Of the spine and vertebrate as parts
OF the body. Upon his statement that
they were very important parts. the de-
Tense cross-eXamined him very closely as
to the nerves which are connected with
the spinal column, their use and impor-
lance to the work Of the body.
The State then rested it's case, and
after the motion by the defense for
direct verdict had been refused by the
court. the respondent also rested. States
Attorney Allen Martin of Essex juno
ton opened the arguments for the State
His plea was brief. He argued that the
respondent held himself out to the pub
lie as one who could treat and cure dis
eases. therefore that he came within
the law relating to physicians. or those
who claimed to he able to relieve bodily
infirmities and bring back his patients
to normal condition or health.
NJ. H. Alexander Of st. Adams spoke
next for the defense. He maintained that
the respondent did not hold himself out
to the public as one who practiced medi-
cine or claimed to be a doctor of medicine.
He said that chiropractic Is not medicine
or surgery, that 1t is a special science
detached from these. that no drugs are
used, but that the entire treatment con.
eists of adjustments.
Attorney M. G. Leary for the defense
argued at length on the law of the case,
taking up each charge made by the State
tCfn
one by one. reading the law and going
over the situation repeatedly to show that
the laws Of the State forbidding a ply
stefan or surgeon to practice In the State
without license did not apply to the
respondents case.
X. e. Brown, who made the closing
argument for the State spoke only a few
minutes. The charge of Judge Frank
l.. Fish outlined the case In detail.
THE CASE OUTLINED.
The charge made by the State. as read
by Clerk Of the Court. c. j. Russell, set
forth the claim that Frank c. Kaatz, the
respondent, had for some time previous
to January 20. 1917. maintained an office
In the Y. NJ. c. A. building in Burling-
ton. had advertised extensively In the
papers and otherwise in Burlington and
other towns Of the State to cure disease
by a scientific method of adjustment
known as chiropractic. and that he had
treated many persons by this method
OF laying on OF hands. all without having
a license to practice In the State The
State claimed that the carrying on of
such practice without license with
the statements made by the respondent
In his advertising. is contrary to the laws
Of Vermont.