50 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



sen-e to qualify him, if in fact he had taken 

 only the two years course formerly required. ^^ 

 Where the law provided that one who had prac- 

 ticed veterinary medicine or veterinary surgerj", 

 *'in their various branches," for five years 

 before the passage of the act could be regis- 

 tered before January 1, 1908, on filing a proper 

 affidavit and letters, the court held that the 

 requirement that the registration must be made 

 before the said first day of January, 1908, was 

 mandatory; and that the applicant, having failed 

 to register before that date, was not entitled to 

 register under that provision.^- But where the 

 application was properly made, but it was later 

 found that the letters failed to show that the 

 signers were stock raisers, or that the ai3plicant 

 had practiced five years, upon a notification by 

 the board it was held that the record might be 

 corrected, and the proof be made comjDlete in 

 January, 1909, although after the said first day 

 of January, 1908.^ ^ Where the application failed 

 to include proof of practice ''in their various 

 branches, ' ' and the letters of recommendation did 

 not cover the entire period of five years, nor indi- 

 cate the kind of service rendered, the court held 

 that the veterinary board had properly denied the 

 application.^^ 

 It will be noticed that in the Jennings case above 



11 Folsom V. State Veterinary i3 Jennings v. State Veteri- 

 Board, 158 Mich. 277, 122 N. nary Board, 156 Mich. 417, 120 

 W. 529. N. W. 785. 



12 Kerbs v. State Veterinary i4 Dusaw v. State Veterinary 

 Board, 154 Mich. 500, 118 N. Board, 157 Mich. 246, 121 N. 

 W. 4. W. 759. 



