60 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 



the board of examiners.^^ Publishing an adver- 

 tisement of ability to cure is such ' ' unprofessional 

 and dishonorable conduct" as to justify a revoca- 

 tion.^*' The power to revoke a license for objec- 

 tionable advertising was upheld by the Arkansas 

 court, which held that the right to practice was 

 not a property right, and that the revocation of 

 the license was not a judicial power.^^ In Mis- 

 souri, in a somewhat similar case, the revocation 

 was not sustained, the court holding that the sta- 

 tute provided for the revocation for dishonorable 

 acts, not for evil thoughts, or an alleged willing- 

 ness to commit abortion; and there was nothing 

 essentially wrong in the advertisement itself.^^ 

 It seems better to acknowledge that the right to 

 practice is a property right, but it is a right which 

 is held subject to the doctrine Alienum tuum non 

 laedat. (§13.) In Arizona a license was revoked 

 for the publication of misleading advertisements, 

 and the court held that such advertisement must 

 be generally considered as dishonorable conduct, 

 and the revocation was sustained.'*^ One Berry 

 advertised that he could cure cancers and gall 

 stones. This advertisement was considered false 

 and misleading, and therefore unprofessional. For 

 gall stones he gave large doses of olive oil, and 



39 State V. State Board of 42 State ex rel. Spriggs v. 

 Med. Examiners, 34 Minn. 387, Eobinson, 253 Mo. 271, 161 S. 

 26 N. W. 123. W. 1169. 



40 State V. State Board of ^3 Aiton v. Board of Medical 

 Med. Exmrs., 34 Minn. 391, 26 Exrs., 13 Ariz. 354, 114 Pac. 

 N. W. 125. 962. 



41 State Med. Board v. Mc- 

 Crary, 95 Ark. 511, 130 S. W. 

 544. 



