Decisions of the English, Scottish and Irish courts under the Medical Acts 1858 to 1886 and the Dentists Act 1878 : collected for the General Medical Council and arranged with introduction and notes / by Charles J. S. Harper.

  • Harper, Charles John Stewart.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Decisions of the English, Scottish and Irish courts under the Medical Acts 1858 to 1886 and the Dentists Act 1878 : collected for the General Medical Council and arranged with introduction and notes / by Charles J. S. Harper. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    128/444 page 68
    It was objected that the plaintiff could not recover, not being on the Medical Register, as required by the Medical Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90). The learned Judge reserved the question, but left it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was acting or holding himself out as a medical man, that is to say, as a physician, surgeon oi' apothecary, and whether the medicine supplied was supplied in that capacity or either of them, or as a means of making the galvanic fluid more effectual. The principal questions of fact in dispute were whether the defendant had employed the plaintiff, and whether the contract was no cure, no pay, the lady, who suffered from a disease of the skin, not having been cured, but, on the contrary, as alleged by him, her complaint was rendered worse by the treatment. The jury having found in favour of the plaintiff, on the points left to them, a rule was obtained to enter a nonsuit, on the ground that the cause of action was within the operation of the Medical Act, or for a new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. Huddleston showed cause.—The case is not within the Medical Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90). This is nothing more than the applica- tion of galvanism in combination with baths. But it is unnecessary to consider this question, as the Medical Act does not extend to this case. Section 32 enacted, that after the 1st of January 1859, no person shall be entitled to recover any charge in any Court of law for any medical or surgical advice, attendance, or for any medicine which he shall have both prescribed and supplied, unless he shall prove upon the trial that he is registered under this Act. The 22 Vict. c. 21 substituted the 1st of July 1859 for the 1st of January, but the 23 & 24 Vict. c. 7 altered it to the 1st of January 1861, a date subsequent to the commencement of the present action—(He was then stopped). Gibbons, in support of the rule.—The section refers to the recovery and proof at the trial, intending that no unqualified person shall have the assistance of the law after the 1st of January 1861 (HaffieU y. Mackenzie [ante, page 10]). (Channell, B.—The only question is, whether the section applies to an action tried after it comes into operation, for work done before. The rule is not to construe an Act retrospectively where such a construction will take away a vested existing right. unless in cases where mere procedure is involved, as m the recent case of Wright v. Hale {a).) Pollock C.B.—It is unnecessary to consider the question raised at the'trial, as it appears the action was brought before the (o) SOL. J. (Ex.) 40.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3