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 In Arizona a license was revoked 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.4# 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 
Med. Examiners, 34 Minn. 387, 
26 N. W. 123. 
40 State v. State Board of 
Med. Exmrs., 34 Minn. 391, 26 
N. W. 125. 
41 State Med. Board v. Mc- 
Crary, 95 Ark. 511, 130 8. W. 
544, 
42State ex rel. Spriggs v. 
Robinson, 253 Mo. 271, 161 S. 
W. 1169. 
43 Aiton v. Board of Medical 
Exrs., 13 Ariz. 354, 114 Pace. 
962. 
