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 contemplated 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 Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 
U. 8S. 114; Hawker v. New 505; Watson v. Maryland, 105 
York, 170 U. 8. 189; Jacobson Md. 650, 66 Atl. 635; Ex parte 
v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11; Spinney, 10 Nev. 323. 
State v. Hathaway, 115 Mo. 36; 
