417

THE LANCET.

LONDON: SATURDAY, OCTOBER 8, 1864.

RECENT PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE MEDICAL ACT.

THE Medical Act and the very important interests involvedin its judicial interpretation have lately been submitted to thenot very dignified ordeal of police adjudication. We desire to

pass without comment the difference of opinion expressed byseveral of the sitting magistrates in reference to the properinterpretation of the terms of a statute, which, we are fain tobelieve with the learned Mr. Baron BRAMwELL, " was drawnup by a person who was no lawyer." It is, however, of serious

importance to the public welfare, as well as a matter deservingof the grave consideration of the Medical Council, to decide whatsteps should be taken in consequence of the recent exhibitionsin our metropolitan police courts. A Mr. WILLIAM TALLEY,with more zeal than discretion, appears to have constitutedhimself a kind of general prosecutor under the Medical Act.He certainly has evinced but small aptitude for so responsiblea position, and has had in two instances to pay for his rash-ness in the pursuit of his crusade against what he believes tobe medical imposition. We particularize the first of his

blunders, applying to his conduct the mildest term.A summons was heard against Mr. M. C. ROGERS, a duly

qualified surgeon acting as a dentist. It was proved that,though not registered, Mr. ROGERS possessed the diploma heprofessed to hold. Mr. TALLEY was either ignorant of this fact,or regarded it as not, in the absence of registration, exemptingMr. ROGERS from the operation of the 40th section of the statute,which provides penalties for those " who wilfully and falselytake and use the name of surgeon, implying that they areregistered under the Medical Act." It is to be regretted ’that Iany gentleman should have, by such careless meddling, beensubjected to the indignity as well as inconvenience of attend-ance at a police court to vindicate himself in a position he haslong, as we can affirm, honourably held. It is well to state

how the law applies to those who hold diplomas and practisebut do not register. The Act invites, but does not compelregistration. The 34th section defines the term " legallyqualified medical practitioner," or " duly qualified medicalpractitioner," or any words importing a person recognised bylaw as a medical practitioner or a member of the medical pro-fession, to mean a person registered under the Act. It does

not prevent practice on the part of those who, though qualifiedby diploma, are not registered. It, however, deprives themof all legal protection unless they are so, and precludesthem from filling any position in the public medical service,while at the same time it refuses to acknowledge in any wayclaims arising out of their practice. The law was so laid

down in PEDGRIFT v. CHEVALLIER, L. J. 2, n. s., 360, and inGfBBoN v. BUDD, L. J., n. s., vol. 32, Ex., p. 184. The

36th section of the Act shows that the Legislature contemplatedthe existence of unregistered practitioners, since it provides forthe situation those who occupy such a position may hold-namely, medical officers to " institcitions supported wholly by

voluntary contributions." This is a question of no legal diffi-culty ; and the gross blunder committed in the case of Mr.ROGERS might have been avoided had the rolls of the severallicensing bodies been consulted previously to taking a stepas serious as it was unjustifiable.A case has occurred in relation to duly qualified medical

practitioners presenting points of difficulty. It is that where

a title is assumed other than that which the diploma or quali-fication as registered warrants. This point arose in the case ofELLIS V. KELLY, 30 L. J., Ex., p. 74. In that case, determined

on appeal, it was admitted that the respondent KELLY, re-gistered as a surgeon, had for years been termed, or had

assumed the title of, Doctor. It was alleged that he possesseda German diploma. The Chief Baron found in his favour on

the ground that the offence rested in his not having dropped atitle he had held rather than in his having assumed it, andthere being no wilful or false pretence. Mr. Baron BRAMWELL

thus expressed himself : " It appears to me that, on the trueconstruction of the 40th section, if any person wilfully andfalsely called himself a Doctor of Medicine, he would be liableto a penalty, although he was in reality a member of the Collegeof Surgeons, or of the Apothecaries’ Company, and was so reogistered." Mr. Baron WILDE was of the same opinion. The

entire Bench concurred in the interpretation of the Act as, onsuch an assumption, not admitting of a doubt, but believedthat the offence should be " wilfully and falsely committed,"Mr. Baron BRAMWELL directing attention to the fact that thestatute did not impose a penalty for mere " incorrectness," andobserving that the term " wilfully" cannot in the statute meanmerely "intentionally," as opposed to "accidentally" (whiclis the meaning it sometimes has), but must be read as pointingto "wilful falsity." We are not aware that a case on thii

point has eventuated in conviction, and considering that thespirit and scope of the Act is to secure practitioners witl

recognised diplomas, we do not believe, except under verJrare circumstances, such another prosecution will be agauundertaken.

A more determined violation of the provisions of the Act ismet with in those cases where the title of surgeon is assumed

in conjunction with other avocations, in order to give to thelatter an apparently professional standing. We allude to

those cases in which individuals without qualification put forththeir names as surgeon. dentists and surgeon-chiropodists.Of both of these recent examples have presented themselves.In both the magistrates have justly held that the letter aswell as the spirit of the Medical Act had been infringed. Hereagain the gravamen of the offence rests in the assumptionof the title being wilful and false. In the case of LADD v.

GOOLD (Law Times, n. s., p. 325) the law as applicable tosuch cases is laid down. This was an appeal from the decisionof the .magistrates before whom the case had been originallytried. GooLD, a dentist of repute, and an ex-officio magistrate,was prosecuted under the Act. The Bench dismissed the case

on the ground that the assumption was not wilful and of falsepretence, but a user under a supposed right. On such a find-

ing the superior Courts had no alternative but to confirm thedecision, as they could not express any opinion on the facts.The case notwithstanding is instructive, as showing the inclina-tion of the judicial mind on such a question. Mr. Justice

CROMPTON observed: "The respondent had called himselfsurgeon and mechanical dentist, which he thought was the

418 THE OPENING ADDRESSES AT THE SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE.

same as surgeon-dentist." The Lord Chief Justice: "The

magistrates were of opinion that the case was not within theAct, and I should have been of the same opinion....... It is likethe case of those persons who call themselves surgeon-dentists,who are known generally not to be surgeons, though some ofthem are." Mr. Justice CROMPTON: " It is like the case of

surgeon-chiropodists." " This case has been erroneously quoted Ias warranting the assumption of such a title. It places the iquestion no higher than this: the mere assumption of theadjunct "surgeon" is not evidence per se of that wilfulness andfalsity which form the essence of the violation the Act providesagainst. In the case of Mr. BEARNARD, recently heard beforeMr. TYRWHITT, that excellent magistrate adopted the view ofthe learned judges we have quoted, and refused to impose apenalty. It is to be regretted that any proceedings shouldhave been instituted without first informing the chiropodist inquestion that his assumption of the title of surgeon was againstthe provisions of the statute, especially so as it did not appearthat he had departed from the special sphere to which helimited his ambition. The case heard tefore Mr. PAGET was ofa more serious character. The titles " surgeon, dentist" were

assumed to evade the provisions of the Act. Under the cover

of such qualification the defendant sought to enter into generalpractice, issued handbills of the usual character adopted bythose who practise in specific diseases and secret remedies, andso conducted himself as not only to assume a title to which hehad no claim, but also to bring into disrepute the professionof which he advertised himself to be a member. Mr. PAGET,looking at the surrounding facts, adjudged the case to be abreach of the law within the meaning of the statute, but for-bore to impose a penalty, as the man convicted had pursuedsimilar practices previously to the Medical Act coming intooperation, and might therefore have been presumed to be igno-rant of its provisions. He, however, declared that should theoffence be repeated the full penalty of the law would be en-forced.

These three several classes of cases-non-registration by agentleman possessing a diploma, the assumption of medicaltitles other than those on which registration has been granted,and the adoption of distinctive qualifications to which there isno claim as an adjunct to mechanical or pseudo-professionalpursuits-constitute perhaps the most important of the exam-ples likely to be heard under the 40th section. The cases we

have quoted contain the law as determined by the judges.It is of the first importance, if medical practitioners are tobe protected, that they place the honour and safe keeping oftheir profession in hands deserving of their confidence, andthat the individual who may represent them in such investi-

gations be of such standing as will at least ensure adequateattention and ability on his part to discharge the responsibletrust confided to him. It is to be hoped that the public willbe spared a repetition of such idle efforts as those recentlywitnessed in the attempted prosecution of Drs. KAHN andScoTT, and that at least, if public morality cannot be pro-tected from their infringements, common sense may not beoutraged through futile efforts to stop their proceedings byidle protestations or imbecile threats. The Medical Council

will do well to think on these matters ; and if, on a review ofthe proceedings which have taken place, they determine on anactive vindication of the provisions of the Act, Mr. TALLEYmay unwittingly have tendered good service to the medicalprofession.

IT seems to ns open to doubt, from some points of view,whether the custom of delivering Introductory Addresses atMedical Schools is not one which would be more honoured in

the breach than the observance. There is one person to whom

the custom is peculiarly oppressive-the victim of the year-the member of the staff on whom the duty falls by rotation of

stringing together in a new arrangement old formulae, re-

decorating the well-known axioms of the schools, saying againthe things which have been said for the last hundred years onsuch occasions, in such a manner as to make them read, as faras may be, as though now said for the first time. The prospectof having to deliver an introductory discourse at the end ofthe vacation has spoiled many a physician’s holiday. The

orator is aware that he is speaking over the heads of his im-mediate auditors to the whole medical profession, and that thegist of what he says-the pith and summary of his address-will appear for comparison with those of other speakers in theweekly medical sheet. Perchance he has received an intima.

tion that it is proposed to honour his address with the thornydistinction of verbatim report. The tale is so much more than

thrice-told, that the fear of being wearisome can hardlyfail to be present to his mind. The addresses this

year are well up to the mark, as far as they are reported.Dr. PAGE, at St. George’s, and Mr. QuAiN, at University,have not offered the usual facilities for reporting, and theirschools remain, therefore, unrepresented ; but many of theorations are extremely spirited, some are very careful, and hereand there verbiage gives place to a touch of eloquence. Dr.

BRAXTON Hicxs has justified our selection of his address forpublication in full by unusual care and thoughtfulness incomposition, and happily turned phraseology. If he has used

the occasion for sounding rather loudly the praises of the noblefoundation and important educational establishment to whichhe is attached, he has done no more than strict merit will

justify and the genius loci might well inspire. But with all,it is questionable whether this annual spouting does not tendmore to weariness of the flesh and vexation of the spirit thanto any useful purpose ; and we are very doubtful whether the

little word conversazione, which now appears at the bottom ofthe cards of invitation to many of the introductory lecturesdelivered in the evenings, might not usefully be allowed gra-dually to swell in dimensions, and the preliminary orations tobe expunged. Sooth to say, orations are oppressive to audienceand to orator, unless the occasion have something of noveltyand be suggestive of something which has not been said fiftytimes before.

Medical Annotations." Ne quid nimis."

THE BROTHERS DAVENPORT.

WE had an opportunity of witnessing at the Hanover-squareRooms, this day sennight, some of the so-called "extra-

ordinary manifestations," which occur in conjunction with theBrothers Davenport. About thirty persons were present atthe sitting. The proceedings began by a gentleman, whoaccompanies the brothers, stating briefly that a series of re-markable phenomena, determined by the presence of theBrothers Davenport, were about to be exhibited. It had beenfound impossible hitherto to trace these phenomena to anyknown physical cause. The brothers were entirely passive