46 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



oned unless he were guilty of malpractice, but that 

 the law clearly provided for a fine. However, he 

 further held that ''the censors cannot be judges, 

 ministers, and parties; * * * and it appears 

 in our books, that in many cases the common law 

 will control acts of parliament, and sometimes 

 adjudge them to be utterly void; for when the 

 act of parliament is against common right and 

 reason; or repugnant and impossible to be per- 

 formed, the common law will control it, and ad- 

 judge such act to be void." So much, therefore, 

 of the statute as contemj^lated that the censors be 

 at the same time complainants, executives and 

 judges in regulating the practice of medicine, he 

 held void. He also held that the trial must be sub- 

 stantiated by a legal record of the proceedings, in 

 order to justify either fine or imprisonment. With 

 slight changes in the wording the decision of Lord 

 Coke is good law today in the United States. It 

 gives the gist of the whole matter. The state has 

 the right to control the practice, though the per- 

 son may hold a diploma. He may be forced to take 

 an examination to demonstrate his fitness. He 

 may be punished for violating the provisions of 

 the statute enacted. 



It has been repeatedly held that the states have 

 authority thus to regulate the practice, and that 

 this power is reserved to the individual states.^ 

 The law as to veterinary practice was tested in 



3 Dent V. West Virginia, 129 Eeetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 



U. S. 114; Hawker v. New 505; Watson v. Maryland, 105 



York, 170 U. S. 189 ; Jaeobson Md. 650, 66 Atl. 635 ; Ex parte 



V. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 ; Spinney, 10 Nev. 323. 

 State V. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36 ; 



