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

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.

87/444 page 27

$appellant, secretary of the Liverpool Medical Registration Association, which charged the respondent with having, on the 21st of February, 1860, wilfully and falsely pretended to be a surgeon and general practitioner or apothecary, or using a name, title, addition, or description implying that he was registered by law as a surgeon, contrary to the form of the statute, whereby he had incurred a penalty not exceeding £20, under the new Medical Act (21 & 22 Vict. c. 90, s. 40). On the hearing it was proved that the respondent had given a certificate in the following terms :— Medical certificate— I hereby certify that I attended William Hayes, late of 110, Mill Street, who died 21st February ; cause enteritis ; and I have no reason to attribute his death to poison, violence, or criminal neglect. Signed, John Hamilton, Botanic Surgeon, Boston, U.S., and 94, Mill Street, Feb. 22, 1860. Over the door of the house where the respondent carried on his business was painted, in large legible characters, J. Hamilton, Surgeon, and in very small letters underneath, Boston, U.S., not registered in England ; and upon a glass panel of the door was painted, J. Hamilton, anti-registered surgeon. The word anti-registered was written in small letters in scroll-work between the name and tlic profession, and was illegible except upon close inspection. The magistrate dismissed the information. The question for the court was whether, under tlio circumstances, there was sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction under the 40th section of the Medical Act. L. Temple.—No doubt the case of Pedgrift v. Chevallier [ante, page 18] is against the appellant so far as it applies to this case. Under the 40th section a person mav be convicted either for wilfully or falsely pretending to be a surgeon, or for assummg any name or descriiDtion implying that he is registered under the Act, or that he is recognised by law as a physician surgeon, &c. (Cockbukn, C.J. — There is no provision that prevents a man from practising as a surgeon ; the penalty for so domg IS that he is disqualified from recovering his fees and from holdmg certain offices.) Section 37 enaots that no certificate requn-ed by any Act from any physician, surgeon, &c., shall be valid unless the person signing the same be registered under the Act. (Hill, J.—Any person present at the death may give such a certificate as the one here ; 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, s. 25 {a).) Act^^?874';'ir?« V-T' '«T''^'i u^' ^^^^^ ^^^ Registration Act 18/4 (37 & .38 Vict. c. 88) and by section 20 of that Act the registered medical practitioner in attendance during the last illness of the deceased person must give the certificate of the cause of death ]$