Here a distinction seems taken between the sciences and essay writer reviews other knowledge, which has been followed since. Huston, cheap essay writing service us delivered the opinion the Court. On the IGth April, was passed an act assembly entitled an act confer certain associations the citizens this commonwealth the powers and immunities corporations or bodies politic in law.
and in rart as follows Whereas, a great portion the time the Legislature has heretofore been employed in enacting laws incorporate private associations and would not only more advantageous the public, but also convenient individuals who are desirous being incorporaled, that the same might lawfully effected without an immediate application in all cases the General Assemblv this commonwealth therefore enacted that, Wherever have power certify, are bound certify if have authority certify, and thus in effect incorporate thiscollege with these pow ers, mast, if applied grant a similar charter, with similar powers, the physicians every county and town in the state.
We have no more right decide the degree medical science in the applicants than the piety a congregation any religious sect which applies tis certify a proposed charter incorporation and this might place the degree Doctor Medicine in a situation somewhat similar what was threatened a celebrated minister France, who said that would create many dukes top writing service that would a shame not a duke and no honor a duke. The degrees conferred in colleges are not offices or appointments, but they confer honor, influence and respectability a certain extent.
The power conferring such degrees was never meant put in such a situation that the attorney general and the Court were bound concur in granting any association which wished incorporated for literary or scientific purposes, and this without the power inquiring as the qualifications the applicants, exercise such power with advantage the community, or the The following a decision concerning osteopathy, District Judge State William Hartford The defendant charged an information with practicing medicine without a license from the State Board Medical Section the Revised Statutes provides that Any person practicing medicine within this state without holding a license shall deemed guilty a misdemeanor. Section provides that Any person shall regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning this title who shall treat, operate upon, or prescribe for any physical ailment another for a fee.
Buy nothing day essays
The defendant admits having manipulated with his hands upon persons for physical ailments, for a fee, and without a license but insists that inasmuch as uses no medicine or surgical instruments, or any other agencies except his naked hands, that does essay proofreading services not come within the prohibited class named in the statute.
assignment writing service dissertation abstract in uk He does not hold himself out as a doctor, physician or surgeon, but denominates himself a diplomat osteopathy.
I need help writing a essay for college
He further insists that his science does not belong any recognized need help on writing an essay school medicine it does, that the present State Board Medical Examiners not legally constituted, how to edit essays being admitted that no osteopathist a member said board while Section the Revised Statutes provides that said board shall consist academic research writing service seven members, who shall representatives the various recognized schools The latter point, I apprehend can not determined in this case.
Order an essay cheap
The whole inquiry, then, recurs whether the defendant practicing customer writing medicine Counsel for defendant invites attention the case Smith Lane Hun.
which seems in point, if the statutes upon which that decision was founded were as broad as ours. But in the New York statute simply provided, in specific terms, that the practice medicine or surgery should a misdemeanor, unless authorized a certificate setting forth such person's qualifications practice all the branches the medical Under that provision was undoubtedly the duty the Court interpret the words practice medicine and surgery in the common acceptance those words and they therefore said the practice medicine a pursuit very generally custom writing cheap known and understood, and also that surgery. The former includes the application and use medicine and drugs for the purpose curing, mitigating or alleviating bodily diseases while the functions the latter are limited manual operations usually performed surgical instruments or appliances.
Tliut uiiiloiibtL'dly i uoil delinitiou the words in thestiitute then Ijefore the Court. Hut onr stntute coes.further and says that, any person shall rejjarded as praeticinfi medicine who shall treat, operate upon, or prescribe for any physical ailment another for a fee. The word treat as detined Webster, in this connection.synonymous with manipulation, handlins'i mode or manner checkinjy and destroyinjc disease That exactly what the testimony in this case shows the defendant did and the Leji islature must have intended that the words thus used them should iiave some sijiuilicance, and used in connection with ailments. There no rKestion in the section that the word treat referred treating with medicine, or with any other specilic agencies a similar kind. If such treatment was done the naked hands and for the purpose curing ailments another, and was done for a fee, seems come iofjically within the intention the statute, which defines such treatment, hnndlinjr or manii uiation as practicing medicine. That section sweepiufj, admit but the power the Lej islature thus enact undoubtedly possessed. My attention was also called the case State ainst Eastman, decided in Indiana. while I can not fully concur with the learned judg'e in the interpretation placed upon the statute then under consideration him, yet all suj ffested was the words other agencies, named in that statute, referred drugs and medicines, aud as osteopathy does not include the use such agencies the practitioners that science did not come within the prohibition that statute, irantiuo the premises in regard the intrepretation the statute, course the conclusion was right but in addition that the Indiana statute only prohibited the direction or recommending for use another drugs, medicines or other agencies, but said absolutely nothing aboiit the personal treatment a person upon another for the curing ailments. Such treatment directly covered our statute. I think the decision in Illinois, in the case Eastman against The People the most valuable, because concerns itself with a statute identical with ours.