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.

    70/444 page 10
    the opinion of this Court whether, upon the evidence, Mr. Gould was guilty of the offence contemplated by the Act. Lush, Q.C., for the appellant.—This case raises the question whether on the evidence there was sufficient to bring the respon- dent within the Act. The use of the word surgeon shows con- clusively that he was taking and using a name and title which did not belong to him. The justices ought therefore to have found him guilty. Crompton, J.—Is that not a question for the justices on which they were bound to draw their own conclusion ? He does not use the word surgeon by itself, but coupled with the words rnechanical dentist. That is the same thing as surgeon dentist which is a common enough designation. CocKBURN, C.J.—You can scarcely say there was any false pretence in using the name of surgeon in connection with the other words. They merely denote a scientific dentist, if they mean anything more than dentist. The justices thought this was not a case which came within the Act, and I should have come to the same conclusion. Crompton,- J.—There was evidence from which the justices might have come to either of two conclusions. It was for them to find the fact, not for us. Lush.—The justices ask the Court whether they drew a right conclusion from the facts. CocKBURN, C.J.—We cannot say they drew a wrong con- clusion. There does not seem to have been any intention to deceive, or any falsehood in using the name of surgeon. It was no more than using the name of surgeon-dentists, who, it is well known, are not in general surgeons, but merely dentists. Crompton, J.—Or take the case of surgeon chiropodists, who are not, and don't profess to be surgeons. It was for the justices to find as matter of fact whether the respondent had used the name wilfully and falsely. They were not bound to convict, and we cannot say they were wrong. Judgment for respondent. HAFFIELD v. MACKENZIE I860. April 19. [lo I. C. L. R. 289] Eeported also : 5 Ir. Jiir. (N.S.) 215. The proof of registration required by the S2nd section of the Medical Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90) by which medical men are
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3