THE ALUMNI JOURNAL. 



283 



license, or who are found, upon examina- 

 tion, not to be duly qualified." See also 

 State vs. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74. 



State vs. Farian, 65 N. H. 42. 

 People vs. Moorman, 86 Mich, 433. 

 State Board vs. White, 84 Kent. 606. 



Of course these laws, like many others, 

 which infringe upon personal liberty, may 

 frequently in individual cases, because 

 of their peculiar surroundings, work 

 seeming injustice, but in the exercise of 

 the police power of the State, in protec- 

 tion of the public health, their enactment 

 has repeatedly been upheld by the courts. 

 In England, in the beginning of the 18th 

 century, the college of physicians prose- 

 cuted apothecary Rose successfully in the 

 court of King's Bench, for prescribing a 

 bolus for Seale, the butcher. 



3 Salk. 16. 6 Mod. 44. 



But apothecary Rose, insistent upon 

 his rights — as apothecaries usually are — 

 won on appeal to the House ol Lords, 

 5 Bro. Pari. Cases 553, because the peers 

 did not believe that every one should be 

 compelled when sick, to call in "a physi- 

 cian to prescribe, an apothecary to dis- 

 pense and a surgeon to let blood." But 

 even their quackery drove the apotheca- 

 ries to procure the passage of the act of 

 53 Geo. III. ch. 194. forbidding any one 

 to practice without a license, and their 

 courts, too, have ever since enforced laws 

 similar to our own. The English apothe- 

 caries' act of 18 15, just mentioned, is the 

 parent of most of the American legislation 

 upon the subject, though our laws exceed 

 that statute in severity in the provisions 

 of our criminal coues. 



So, too, these laws in our country have 

 been sustained in so far as they forbid 

 others than graduates of certain schools 

 to practice, requiring a certain period of 

 residence in the State, permitting all 

 actually in practice at the time of the 

 passage of a law to continue to practice 

 upon registration, but imposing certain 



burdens upon others, forbidding licensed 

 physicians from conducting drug stores, 

 except in compliance with the pharmacy 

 law, and creating State boards ol examin- 

 ers. 



Hewitt vs. Charier, 16 Pick, 353. 



State vs. Vanderslins, 42 Minn. 129. 



43 N. W. 789, State vs. Green. 

 112 Ind. 462, 14 N. E. 352, State vs. Hathaway. 

 21 S, W. 10S1, State vs. Creditor, 24 Pac, 346. 

 Brown vs. People, 11 Col. 109, 17 Pac. 104. 



Again, a license may be revoked for 

 unprofessional conduct, or such other 

 causes as the statute or the Board may 

 prescribe. But the holder must have 

 notice and an opportunity to answer the 

 charges against him. 



Gage vs. Censors, 63 N. H. 92-94. 



State vs. Med. Ex. Bd. 32 Minn. 324. 

 People vs. McCoy, 125 111. 289, 30 111. App. 272. 

 State vs. Schultz, 28 Pac. 643. 

 So, on the other hand, a mandamus 

 would lie to compel a board to grant a 

 license if they arbitrarily and without 

 just cause refuse it. 



Harding vs. People, 10 Colo. 387. 



Dental Exrs. vs. People, 123 111, 227. 



People vs. Bellevue, 60 Hun 109. 



State vs. Fleischner. 41 Minn. 69. 

 An unlicensed practitioner would not 

 be entitled to exemption from jury duty. 

 It is questionable whether he could 

 maintain an action for slander if a jealous 

 competitor would call him a quack. 



Hargan vs. Purdy, 20 S. W. 432. 

 Skirving vs. Ross, 31 Upper Can. C. P. 423. 



Collins vs. Carnegie, 1 A & E 695. 

 An unlicensed practitioner could not re- 

 cover for prescriptions compounded by 

 him and not paid for by his customers. 

 Such cases would fall within the princi- 

 ple of Ferdon vs. Cunningham, 20 How. 

 P. 154, L,auger vs. Unterbury, 9 Misc. 

 210, and Bloom vs. Soberski, 8 Misc. 

 311, that where a statute prescribes cer- 

 tain regulations compliance witl^them is 

 prerequisite to recovery. 



There are things which one may not 

 do although he have a license. 



