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.

    155/444 page 95
    R. V. Williams, for tlie defendant, was Iieard only as to the plaintiff's right to recover for medicines su^jplied as a surgeon. Blackburn, J.—I think that there can be no doubt in this case. By the Apothecaries Act (55 Geo. 3, c. 194), s. 21, no apothe- cary could recover for medicines supplied by him, unless he had a certificate from the Society of Apothecaries. Then came the Medical Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90), which by section 31 enables a person registered under the Act according to his qualification to practise medicine or surgery and recover charges for profes- sional aid and the cost of medicines supplied by him. This section does not repeal the Apothecaries Act, but so far as its provisions apply, takes a case out of that Act. Therefore, where the qualification of a medical practitioner is to practise medicine, he is at liberty to recover for medicines not connected with surgery ; but if he is not so quahfied, he is not within the new Act, and the former disability remains. Section 32 does not advance the plaintiff's case, as it is a disabling section and con- fers no additional rights. It seems to me quite proper, that a gentleman should not be quahfied to practise in one department cf medicine, merely because he has passed an examination in another. QuAiN, J., concurred. Archibald, J.—I am of the same opinion. The Medical Act was passed in order that all medical practitioners might be registered according to their qualifications. By the Apothecaries Act, no one can recover for medicines sold by him, unless he has a certificate, and the only effect of section 31 of the later Act is to enable a physician to recover according to his qualification Ihe plaintiff however was only qualified as a sm-geon and not as an apothecary, and as there is nothing to show that the Apothecaries Act is repealed, his disability remains. Judgment for the defendant upon ihe first point and for the plaintiff on the second. LEMAN V. HOUSELEY 1874. Nov. 20. [44 L. J. (Q. B.) 22] Eeported also : L. K. 10 Q. B. 66 ; 31 L. T. 833 ; 23 W. E. 235. Medical Act 1858 (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90), ss. 31, ^2~Avothe- car^es Act (55 Geo. 3, c. 194), ... 14, 2l-Medical PraZZ
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3