A Medical Board Member’s $100 Ghost Bill
Dr. Minkler told Thurston County he had paid two Centralia doctors for help. They said they never got the money — and a legal technicality kept the case alive only as a threat of removal.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
An interesting case was before the superior court of Lewis County in the suit of Drs. Dumond and Francis of Centralia vs. Dr. Minkler, yesterday. Some months ago Minkler was authorized by the Thurston County commissioners to attend a patient on the outskirts of the county, for which he would be allowed $50. He afterward represented to the commissioners that he had paid to Dumond and Francis $100, out of his own pocket, for assistance in the case, and the commissioners reimbursed him. Dumond and Francis claim never to have received the money, and brought suit to secure the amount from Minkler.
The evidence against Minkler was clear and conclusive, but the complaint was not properly made and a nonsuit was granted. The matter was referred to the county attorney of Thurston, and Minkler will be again prosecuted for obtaining money under false pretenses. The case is of particular interest to physicians throughout the state, inasmuch as Minkler is the physio-medico-eclectic member of the state board of medical examiners and his appointment by Governor Ferry occasioned much ill-feeling among the members of the State Medical Society. Since his appointment efforts have been made to secure his removal, which will undoubtedly be accomplished as a result of the charges of obtaining money under false pretenses.
“The evidence against Minkler was clear and conclusive, but the complaint was not properly made and a nonsuit was granted.”
The technicality that ended the 1891 suit did not end the story: Thurston County referred the matter for a second prosecution and critics pressed for removal from the state medical board. It is a reminder that oversight boards are only as credible as the people on them — and that procedural errors can leave public trust unresolved.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.