50 ESSENTIALS OF VETERINARY LAW 
serve 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 surgery, 
‘(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.1?7 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 applicant 
had practiced five years, upon a notification by 
the board it was held that the record might be 
corrected, and the proof be made complete in 
January, 1909, although after the said first day 
of January, 1908.12 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 13s 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 14 Dusaw v. State Veterinary 
Board, 154 Mich. 500, 118 N. Board, 157 Mich. 246, 121 N. 
W. 4. W. 759. 
