CHAPTER XV.

PARTNERS, GOODWILL, ASSISTANTS.

A partnership [495] between medical men is an association of persons, standing to one another in the relation of principals, for jointly carrying out the objects of their profession, with an agreement to share the profits.

The general laws relating to partnerships apply to those of medical men or dentists. There can be no partnership, as between themselves, if the relationship of master and servant exists, or where there is no joint interest. No particular form of words is needed to create a partnership, nor need the agreement be in writing unless it is to last for more than a year from the date. If an agreement to form a partnership is broken an action will lie, if the terms of the agreement be clear and distinct; but the performance of such an agreement will not be compelled unless all the terms have been fixed and ascertained, and a definite time for its duration agreed on.

If one has been induced to enter the partnership through the fraud or misrepresentation of the other, the party deceived may at his option avoid the contract. But he should act promptly on discovering the deception. Where a surgeon was induced to enter into partnership with, and pay a large premium to another, in consequence of |190| misrepresentations as to the amount of income derived from the practice, a dissolution was decreed and a return of part of the premium [496]; and where a practitioner took a partner and a premium, and agreed to continue practising for three years, concealing the fact that he was suffering from a disease which soon carried him off, his executor was ordered to return part of the premium [497].

Partners are trustees and agents for one another, and must exercise the most perfect good faith towards one another. One cannot sue the other for his share of the profits until the accounts have been stated and settled between them. One medical man cannot, as a rule, bind his partner by borrowing money, even to pay partnership liabilities, or by making or drawing promissory notes or bills of exchange; but he may generally do so by simple contracts, within the scope of the business.

In England, it appears that there is nothing illegal in the partnership of a qualified and an unqualified practitioner, and that it will be sufficient if only one member of the firm be registered [498].

A partnership may be dissolved by mutual agreement, or by the effluxion of time. A wilful and permanent neglect of business is a ground for dissolution; so is gross misconduct by a partner in reference to partnership matters. Immoral conduct materially affecting the business will be a ground for dissolution; also, insanity, or permanent incapacity [499]. On a dissolution the partners may separately carry on the business at any place, unless restrained by agreement. |191|

Sir John Leach considered that in a partnership, between professional persons, upon the death of one partner the good-will of the business belonged to the survivor, and that he was not bound to account to the representatives of the deceased partner for it [500].

A good-will attaches to a professional, as well as to any other kind of business, and it is and may be the subject of purchase and sale; and although it is not computable, and the sale of it is not enforceable by an action for specific performance if it has not been estimated, yet it does stand on the same footing as any other business, if the parties have fixed a determinate price upon it, or have provided any other way of fixing its value [501]. The good-will of a medical man’s business is an asset of his estate which his representatives can sell, and for which they must account if it is sold. But it is not clear that the representatives can be compelled to find a purchaser [502].

Jessel, M. R., recently asked the question, “What is the meaning of selling a medical practice?” And in answering his query he said, “It is the selling of the introduction of the patients of the doctor who sells to the doctor who buys, he has nothing else to sell except the introduction. He can persuade his patients, probably, who have confidence in him to employ the gentleman he introduces as being a qualified man, and fit to undertake the cure of their maladies, but that is all he can do. Therefore, when you talk of the sale of a non-dispensing medical practice—of course, when a man keeps what is called a doctor’s shop, there is a different thing entirely to sell—you are really talking of the sale of the introduction to the patients, and the length, the |192| character and duration of the introduction, the terms of the introduction are everything. And there is something more, according to my experience, in cases of the sale of medical practices; there is always a stipulation that the selling doctor shall retire from practice either altogether or within a given distance. It is so always, and there is also sometimes a stipulation that he will not solicit the patients, or shall not solicit them for a given time. They are both very important stipulations as regards keeping together the practice for the purchasing doctor” [503].

The general rule of law is, that any contract in general restraint of trade or industry is illegal and void as contrary to public policy; but such contracts are valid if they operate merely as a partial restraint, and are made for good consideration, and not unreasonable. Whether they are reasonable or not, is for the Court, not the jury, to say. A contract made with an assistant, or with a partner, that upon separating from the principal, or partner, he will not practise within a certain section of country, or for a certain time, is valid when made in consideration of instruction to be given, or pecuniary or other benefits to be enjoyed in consequence of the partnership. The limits must be reasonable, and when the contract is not to practise within so many miles of a certain place, the distance will be measured “as the crow flies,” unless otherwise mentioned [504].

Covenants, on the part of an assistant to a surgeon and apothecary, not to practise on his own account for fourteen years, in a certain town, or within ten miles of the town; and not at any time to practise within five, seven, ten, twenty miles of certain places, have been all respectively |193| held good [505]. The comparative populousness of the district forbidden ought not to enter into consideration at all; and an assistant to a dentist was held bound by a covenant not to practise in London, notwithstanding that city had a population of over a million [506]. But a stipulation not to practise within one hundred miles of York, in consideration of receiving instruction in dentistry, was held void [507].

A promise, whether verbal or written, made without good consideration by a medical man not to exercise or carry on his profession within certain limits is void. The stipulations in a contract not to practise are divisible, and if part of them be unreasonable, and therefore illegal and void, the agreement is not void altogether; and the remaining stipulations, if valid, will not be affected by the illegality of the others [508].

The relations of medical men to their apprentices, assistants and pupils, are, as a rule, regulated by the ordinary law of master and servant. No particular words are needed to create the relationship of master and apprentice, or master and assistant, the intention of the parties will be considered, nor need the agreement be in writing, unless it is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof [509]. A master is liable on contracts entered into by his apprentice or assistant, when he has authorized him to enter into any such contract, either expressly, or by implication. For instance, if an assistant usually orders drugs |194| on credit, and the master usually pays, the master will be held liable to pay for any goods of a similar nature which the assistant may get for his own and not his master’s use [510]. The master is also, as a rule, liable to a civil action for the wrongful acts of his assistant, unless they be beyond the ordinary scope of his employment; the plaintiff, however, must prove that the injury was produced by want of proper skill, where the act complained of is said to have arisen through want of skill [511]. But the master will not be criminally responsible for the acts of his assistant or apprentice, if the latter has caused the death of any one, unless, indeed, he has expressly commanded or taken part in the acts [512]. In a case of criminal negligence, the apprentice himself is responsible; if a party is guilty of negligence, and death results, the party guilty of that negligence is also guilty of manslaughter.

An apprentice, or pupil, cannot be dismissed in as summary a way as an ordinary servant for misconduct. In one case it was held that though a person has a right to dismiss a servant for misconduct, still he has no right to turn away an apprentice because he misbehaves; and that the case of a young man, say of seventeen, who under a written agreement, is placed with a medical man as “pupil and assistant,” and with whom a premium is paid, is a case between that of apprenticeship and service; and if such an one on some occasions comes home intoxicated, this alone will not justify the surgeon in dismissing him. But if the “pupil and assistant,” by employing the shop boy to compound the medicines, occasions real danger to the surgeon’s practice, this would justify the surgeon in dismissing him [513]. |195|

Pupils and others admitted to hear the lectures of medical men, whether such lectures are delivered _ex-tempore_, or from memory, or from notes, although they may go to the extent, if they are able to do so, of taking down the whole by means of shorthand, can do so only for the purposes of their own information, and cannot publish the lectures for profit without the consent of the lecturer [514].

|197|

INDEX.

A.

ABORTION— Evidence of experts in cases of, 116. Criminality of, 146, 147.

ACCIDENT— Payment of medical men in cases of, 40, 41.

ACCOUNT— Must be in detail, 22.

ADVERTISING QUACKS—132, 133.

AMPUTATED LIMBS— Ownership of, 143.

ANATOMY— A lawful study, 154, 157, 158. Hindrances to study of, 149, 152. In early days, 149, 150. Provision made for study of, in England, 150, 153. — — — — — in Canada, 151, 156. — — — — — in United States, 155, 156.

ANATOMY ACT OF 1832—153.

ANGUINEUM—2.

APOTHECARIES— In England in early days, 11. Incorporated in England, 12. How regulated, 12. Duties of, 12. Fees of, 15, 16.

ARTIFICIAL TEETH.—_See_ TEETH.

ASSAULTS ON PATIENTS— Attempting carnal intercourse with, 144. Wantonly stripping patient, 144. Taking layman to midwifery case, 144. Liability for committing one as insane, 146.

ASSISTANTS AND APPRENTICES— Rules regulating, 193. Master liable for, civilly, 193, 194. — not liable criminally, 194. — may recover for services of, 20. Misconduct of, 194.

ATTENDANCE— Medical men neglecting, 72, 73. Withdrawing from, 73, 74.

B.

BARBERS— As practitioners, 4, 5, 6.

BAUNSCHEIDT SYSTEM— Layman practising, 47. Liability for using, 89.

BODIES— Supply of, for dissecting, 150–156.

BODY-SNATCHING—_See_ RESURRECTION, 152–157.

BOOKS—_See_ SCIENTIFIC BOOKS, 99–105.

BOTANIC PHYSICIANS—52, 54, 88.

C.

CARELESSNESS—_See_ NEGLIGENCE. Of patient, 67–69. When physician criminally liable for, 85–88, 91. In treating internal diseases, 92.

CHARACTER— Defamation of, when actionable, 131, 134.

CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST—_See_ DRUGGISTS.

CHLOROFORM— Care needed in using, 163–166.

CIVIL LIABILITY— For negligence—_See_ NEGLIGENCE. For stealing corpse, 157.

CLAIRVOYANT PHYSICIAN— Must be licensed in Maine, 52. Misrepresentations by, 142.

CLERICAL PRACTITIONERS—3.

COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN PHYSICIAN AND PATIENT— When not privileged, 93. When privileged, 94–96.

CONSULTATIONS—23.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES— Precautions necessary when attending, 21, 143. Exposing people suffering from, 147.

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE— Of patient, 67–69.

CORPSE— Stealing, 152. Who owns the, 153. Selling, 153. Raising, a misdemeanor, 154–156. Civil liability for raising, 157. Exhuming, when ordered, 159.

CRIMINAL LIABILITY—_See_ CRIMINAL MALPRACTICE.

CRIMINAL MALPRACTICE— Definition of, 55 in, 82. Immaterial whether physician licensed or not, 83, 84, 91. What makes, 84, 85. Physician acting honestly and _bonâ fide_, 89, 92. Mistakes of druggists, 180, 181.

CRITICISM— When justifiable, 132, 133.

CURE— Not essential to right to pay, 20, 21. No cure, no pay, 24. Promising, 143. Curious cures, 2, 3, 8.

CONTRACT— Between physician and patient, 141. Not to practice, 192, 193.

D.

DAMAGES— For personal injuries, 78, 80. Rules for determining, 78, 79. Not recoverable against representatives, 80. In cases of death, 80, 81. Only one action for same cause, 81. Against negligent druggists, 177–185. — — dentists, 162–167.

DEATH— Damages when negligence causes, 80, 81. Evidence of experts as to cause of, 116–119.

DECLARATIONS OF SICK PEOPLE— When evidence, 96–98.

DEFAMATION—129–137. What libel, what slander, 129. When actionable, 129, _et seq._ Civil and criminal remedies, 130. Imputing want of knowledge, 130. — unprofessional conduct, 131–132. — immorality, 134. Holding up to ridicule, 132. Justifiable criticism not, 132, 133. Evidence in actions for, 135. When physician liable for, 135–137.

DENTISTS—Chapter XIII. Early practitioners, 160, 161. Subjects of examination for, 161, 162. In Ontario, must be licensed, 162. Liability for negligence, 162, 167. Pulling wrong tooth, 163, 167. Skill requirable, 164, 166. Acting gratuitously, 166. When services are useless, 167. Are they mechanics? 169, 170. Defrauding patient, 171, 172. Appropriating signs of others, 172.

DILIGENCE— Must go along with skill, 64.

DIPLOMA— _Prima facie_ proof of skill, 64.

DISCRETION— As to modes of treatment, 25. As to number of visits, 63.

DISSECTION— Provisions made for, 150, 151. English Anatomy Act, 153. Lawfulness of, considered, 157, 158.

DRUGGISTS—Chapter XIV. Definition, 174. Old time, 175. Requirements of, 175–176. Liability for miscompounding, 176–178. — — mistakes, 177–185. — — quality of drug, 178. — criminally, 180. — for selling adulterating substances, 186. — — — deleterious drugs, 186. — — — intoxicants, 187, 188. Warrants drug to be as represented, 179. Label a warranty, 179–180.

DRUGS— Physician may charge for, 24. Mistakes in selling, 177–186.

DRUIDS—1–3.

DUEL— Medical man attending, 144.

DUTY OF PHYSICIAN— On undertaking charge of patient, 57. Not bound to take charge, 57. To possess ordinary care, diligence and knowledge, 58–61. In cases of small-pox, 22, 144, 147.

DYING DECLARATIONS— Evidence in certain cases, 105.

E.

EARLY PRACTITIONERS—Chapter I.

ENGLAND— Early practitioners in—Chapter I. Who may practice, 43. Women may practice, 14.

ENTRIES AGAINST INTEREST— Admissible as evidence, 105, 106.

EXPERIMENTS— Liability on making, 71, 72, 168.

EVIDENCE—_See_ EXPERTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE, SCIENTIFIC BOOKS.

EXPERTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE— Fees to medical witnesses, 27, _et seq._ Excluding at trial, 106, 120. Limiting number at trial, 106. Rules for guidance, 106, 107. When evidence of, admitted, 108, 117–120, 127. Who may be experts, 109–114, 128. The Court decides who may be, 113, 114. Experts among the Romans, 109. Opinions concerning, 110, 121–124. Need not have made a special study, 112. Better if they have, 112, 127. Jury to decide weight to be given to, 114. Opinions on morals, 115. Do not speak as to merits, 115, 118, 125, 127. Advisers of the Court, 115, 116. Should state grounds of opinion, 116. Admissible only as to matters of skill, 119. Are not jurors, 119, 125. Opinions on opinion, 119. In insanity cases, 121–128. What they may be asked, 124, 125. Must hear all the evidence, 126. Hypothetical cases, how put, 126, 127.

F.

FAMILY PHYSICIAN— Recommending another, 148.

FEES—_See_ PAYMENT OF MEDICAL MEN. Under Roman Law, 15. Of physicians, not recoverable at Common Law, 15, 16. Recoverable under Medical Act, 15, 17. Of surgeons and apothecaries, 15, 16. Of physician and surgeon, 16. In Scotland and the Colonies, 17. In America, 17. No express promise to pay necessary, 18. How fixed, 18, 19. Must be reasonable, 19. In some countries fixed by law, 19. Services of assistants, 20. Not dependant upon cure, 20, 21. But services must be of benefit, 20–24, 167. Account should be in detail, 23. For friendly visits, 24. For drugs, 24. Where no cure, no pay, 25. To medical witnesses, 26, 27. To medical experts, 27–31. Exorbitant charges, 140. Who must pay, 32.

FRANCE— Who may practise in, 44.

FRIEND— Prescribing as, fees, 24. Not medical attendant, 24.

G.

GERMANY— Who may practise in, 44.

GIFTS TO MEDICAL MEN— Are closely watched, 139. When set aside, 139, 140. When sustained, 140, 141.

GOODWILL— In professional partnerships, 191. Sale of, 191.

GRATUITOUS SERVICES— Liability of physicians for, 61, 65, 66. — — unprofessional men, 66, 67. — — dentists, 166.

GROSS NEGLIGENCE— What is, 87, 88. Liability for, 55.

H.

HAIR-DYE— Noxious, damages for, 182.

HOMŒOPATHISTS— Regulations as to, in Ontario, 66. Are Physicians in New York, 50, 54. Are not Quacks, 132. Consulting with, 134.

HUSBAND— When liable for attendance on wife, 35, 39. When liable for artificial teeth for wife, 171. Suing druggist for damages to wife’s health, 186.

HYPOTHETICAL CASE— How put, 126, 127.

I.

IGNORANCE— Liability for gross ignorance, 55–61. Criminal liability for gross, 55–88, 91, 92. Imputing, when actionable, 130.

IMMORALITY— When actionable to impute, 134.

IMPROPER TREATMENT— When a defence to action, 20–24, 167. Charges for, 20, 22, 167.

INFANT— Medicines and medical aid, necessary for, 39.

INFECTIOUS DISORDERS— Exposing persons suffering from, 147. Duty of physicians in cases of, 22, 143, 147.

INSANE PATIENT— Not liable for negligence, 69.

INSANITY CASES— Evidence of experts, 121–128. Opinions concerning, experts in, 121–124. When expert evidence admissible, 124. How to examine witnesses, 124–125. Putting hypothetical cases, 126, 127. Evidence of non-experts, 128. Experts can only give opinions, 129. Liability for committing in, 145–146. Requisites for committal, 146.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS— When unlawful to give, 148. Druggists selling, 187–188.

IRELAND— Early practitioners in, 6.

L.

LABEL OF DRUGGIST— Is a warranty, 179–180.

LECTURES— Cannot be published by students attending them, 195.

LIBEL—_See_ DEFAMATION.

M.

MALPRACTICE—_See_ CRIMINAL MALPRACTICE. Defined, 55. Consequences of, 55. Civil and criminal, 55, 56, 83. Some injury must be proved, 76. Is a question for the jury, 76. Cases of, should be construed in favor of physician, 76, 77. Cases against physician rare, 77. Actionable to charge one with, 133.

MANIPULATION— Practising, without license, 51.

MANSLAUGHTER—_See_ CRIMINAL MALPRACTICE. Physicians acting honestly and _bonâ fide_, 89, 90. Druggist making mistake, 180–184.

MASTER AND SERVANT—_See_ ASSISTANTS AND APPRENTICES. Payment of medical attendance, 40.

MEDICAL ACT OF ENGLAND— Recovery of fees under, 17.

MEDICAL ACT OF ONTARIO— Recovery of fees under, 17.

MEDICAL MAN— Chaucer’s definition of, 7. Had to be graduates in old times, 7. Divisions under Henry VIII, 8. Qualifications necessary to practise, 9, 48. Qualifications under Henry VIII, 10. No branches in America or Colonies, 17. Discretion as to mode of treatment, 25. As witnesses, 26. Who must pay, 32–41. Who may practise, 42. The law favors no school, 42, 47. Must practise according to school, 52, 53, 54. One practising liable as, 54. Duties when assuming charge, 57, 72, 73. Must exercise ordinary care and diligence, 58. Must keep up with the age, 61, 71. Not liable for bad nursing, 70. Rashly trying new experiments, 71. Accepting retainer must attend, 72, 73. Withdrawing from attendance, 73, 74. Liability when not employed by patient, 74. Action against, for defamation, 135–137. Administering intoxicants, 148. Relations with patients, 138–146. Care necessary in choosing, 148.

MEDICINE— When first studied in England, 6. First statute concerning, 8. Evidence of experts as to, 118.

MEMORANDA— When may be used in court, 98.

MIDWIFE— Defamatory words when actionable, 130.

MISREPRESENTATIONS— To obtain money, 142, 143.

MISTLETOE—1.

MORALS— Expert opinions on, 115.

N.

NECESSARIES— Medicine and medical aid, 35, 39. Artificial teeth, 171.

NEGLIGENCE OF MEDICAL MEN— Communicating contagious diseases, 22. Liability for gross negligence, 55. Judged from legal stand point, 56. Defined, 56, 57. Liability for, when causing injury, 57, 63, 167. Medical men must exercise reasonable care and diligence, 58. Sex no excuse, 61. Where services are gratuitous, 65. — — — voluntary, 65, 66. Proximate cause, 69. When requested to perform operation, 69. Aggravated by nursing, 70. General reputation unavailing, 71, 86. Injurious treatment, 72. Neglecting to attend, 72, 73. Where not employed by patient, 74, 75. Not liable for every mistake, 75. Is a question for the jury, 76. Amount of damages recoverable, 78–80. Action for, does not survive against representatives, 80. Where death is caused by, 80, 81. Criminal negligence, 82–85. Immaterial whether physician licensed or not, 83, 84. Acting _bona fide_ no criminal liability, 89, 90. Patient affected by mortal disease, 90, 91. Imputing want of skill, when actionable, 130, 133. Of dentists, 162, _et seq._ Of druggists, 177, _et seq._

NEGLIGENCE OF PATIENT— Responsible for careless choice of physician, 53. Knowledge of physician’s ignorance, 57, 67. Disobeying or neglecting orders, 67, 68. What is contributory negligence, 68. Insane patient’s negligence, 69.

NEW YORK— Who may practise in, 49–51.

NURSING— Aggravating the case, 70. Liability of medical man for, 70.

O.

ONTARIO— Who may practise medicine in, 45. — — — dentistry in, 162. — — — as druggists in, 176.

OPINION—_See_ EXPERT EVIDENCE.

P.

PARENT AND CHILD— Liability of parent for doctor’s bill, 33. Rule in England and United States, 37, 38. Statutory liability in England, 38, 39.

PARTNERSHIP AMONG MEDICAL MEN— Definition of, 189. General rules applicable, 189. Fraudulently inducing one to enter into, 189. Conduct of partners, 190. Dissolution, 190. Interest of survivor, 191.

PATIENT—_See_ RELATIONS WITH. Calling homœopath, 54. Physician not bound to take, 57, 72. Must exercise prudence in selecting doctor, 67. Must co-operate with doctor, 67, 68. Must exercise ordinary care and prudence, 68, 69. Physician withdrawing from, 73, 74. Not employing physician, 74, 75. Suffering from mortal disease, 90, 91. Submitting to dangerous operation, 91. Communication with physician not privileged, 93.

PAYMENT OF MEDICAL MEN—_See_ FEES. Physician called in by stranger, 32–35. Wife may bind husband for, 35, 36. As between parent and child, 35–39. — — master and servant, 40. Paupers, 40. Liability of railways in accidents, 40, 41.

PECULIAR PEOPLE—38, 39.

PERSIA— Medical fees in, 19.

PHARMACY, COLLEGE OF— In Ontario, 175, 176.

POISONS— Should be marked, 184. Selling illegally, 185.

POST MORTEM— Fees for, 27.

PRACTISE— Who may, 42, _et seq._ Contracts not to, 192, 193.

PRACTICE— Sale of, 191, 192.

PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS— Communications between physician and patient not, 93. Are by statute in some States, 94, 95. Must be lawful to be, 95. Necessary for physician to prescribe, 95. Report of officer of insurance company, 96. Defamatory statements when, 136, 137.

PROFESSIONAL EVIDENCE— Representation by patient as to malady, 96–98. Mem. made by physician, 98, 105. Scientific books not admissible, 99–105. Dying declarations when admissible, 105. Entries against interest admissible, 105. Rules for guidance of medical witness, 106, 107. Exclusion of experts, 120.

Q.

QUACKS— When medical men may be called, 133, 134. When not, 132.

R.

RASHNESS—86.

REGISTRATION OF MEDICAL MEN— Before recovery of fees, 17, 18, 45. Before practice in England and Ontario, 44, 45. Who may be registered in England, 44. — — — — — Ontario, 45. Non-registered practitioners are quacks, 133. Striking off registry for felony, 148.

REGULAR PHYSICIAN— An allopathic, 51.

REPRESENTATION BY PATIENT— As to malady, when evidence, 96–98.

REPUTATION— Unavailing in accidents for negligence, 71, 86.

RESTRAINT OF TRADE— When such contracts are allowable, 192, 193.

RESURRECTION— Stealing winding sheet, 152. Taking body a misdemeanor, 154. Assisting at, 156. Civil liability for, 157. Ordered in proper cases, 159.

RELATIONS WITH PATIENTS— No one can take advantage of a trust reposed, 138. Practitioner must shew fairness of dealings with patients, 138. Undue influence, when inferred, 138–140. Gifts to medical men set aside, 139, 140. Exorbitant charges relieved against, 140. When patient has independent advice, 140, 141. Contracts open and fair, 141. Wills in favour of medical men, 141, 142. Misrepresentations by medical men, 142. Promises of cure, 143. Duties in cases of small-pox, 143. Right to limbs, 143. Assaults on patients, 144–146.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. Edinburgh—11.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. Ireland—11.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS. London—9.

S.

SALE OF PRACTISE—191, 192.

SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE— The law favors no school, 42, 43, 47, 51, 115. Physician must practise according to his school, 52. Considered in determining skill needed, 63, 64. Experts may be of any school, 115.

SCIENTIFIC BOOKS— Not admissible as evidence, 99. Rule different in Iowa and Wisconsin, 100. Cannot be read to jury, 100–103. Can be used to test witness, 101. Can be read to jury in some States, 103–105. When cannot be quoted to jury, 105. Can be read to the court, 105.

SCOTLAND— Early practitioners in, 5.

SIGN— An evidence of professional character, 64. Of dentists in old days, 161. Misleading, 173.

SKILL— Physician must have ordinary, 57, 58. What is ordinary, or reasonable skill, 59. Amount required, 59–62. — — varies, 60, 61. Liability if skill not applied, 62. Skill and diligence must be joined, 63. School considered in determining, 64. Proof of skill, 64. Required in non-professional, 64, 65. — — volunteer, 65. — — gratuitous services, 65, 66. — — dentists, 162.

SLANDER—_See_ DEFAMATION.

SMALL-POX— Duties of physician in cases of, 143. Innoculation, 147. Exposing patients with, 147.

SMITHS— As practitioners, 4.

SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES—2, 3, 8.

SURGEONS— United with barbers, 4–6. Union dissolved, 5. Qualification under Henry VIII, 9. Fees, 15. Right to amputated limbs, 143. Attending duels, 144.

T.

TEETH— Value of, 166. Dentists pulling wrong tooth, 163. Artificial, need not be perfect, 163, 168. Contract for purchase of, 169. Artificial are necessaries, 171.

U.

UNDUE INFLUENCE— When exercised over patient, 138, 140. Setting aside will for, 141, 142. Exercised by dentist, 171.

UNITED STATES— As a rule any one may practise, 47. The law sometimes interferes, 47. Statutory requirements, 48, 51.

UNPROFESSIONAL MEN— Liable for gross negligence, 65. Liability for gratuitous services, 66, 67. When criminally liable, 92. Admitting, at a confinement, 144.

UNREGISTERED PHYSICIAN— Practising for reward, 45, 46. — — charity, 46.

V.

VACCINATION— Negligence of physician, 22.

VISITS— Physician best judge of number, 23. As a friend, 24.

VOLUNTEER— Held more strictly than one called in, 65, 66.

W.

WIFE— May generally bind husband to pay doctor, 35, 36. But husband may select physician, 36. Cannot bind him for clairvoyant services, 36. Selling deleterious drugs to, 186.

WILL— In favour of medical man, 141, 142.

WITNESS—_See_ EXPERTS. Fees to medical men, 26, 37.

WOMEN PHYSICIANS— Among the Druids, 2. In England in early times, 2, 3, 10, 14. Penalty for practising, 7. In Greece and foreign lands, 13. In United States, 14. In England under the Medical Act, 14. In Ontario, 14. As liable for negligence as men, 61.

Printed for the Publishers by MOORE & CO., 20 Adelaide Street East, Toronto.

ENDNOTES.

[1] The Faërie Queene, b. III., cap. 5, sts. 31, 32, 33.

[2] 32 Henry VIII., cap. 42.

[3] 21 & 22 Vic. cap. 90.

[4] 3 Henry VIII. cap. 11.

[5] _Rose_ v. _Coll. of Phy._, 3 Salk. 17: 6 Mod. 44.

[6] 55 Geo. III. cap. 194. sec. 5.

[7] _Apoth. Co._ v. _Lotinga_, 2 Moo. & R. 499; Glenn’s Laws Affecting Medical Men, p. 207.

[8] True Blue Laws of Connecticut, by J. H. Trumbull, 1876.

[9] Prof. H. C. Bolton, _Pop. Sci. Monthly_, vol. 18 p. 191.

[10] 3 Ortolan, Expli. des Instituts, sec. 1199, quoted in Ordronaux’s Jurisprudence of Medicine.

[11] _Poucher_ v. _Norman_, 3 B. & C. 744; _Chorley_ v. _Bolcot_, 4 T. R. 317; _Veitch_ v. _Russell_, 3 Q. B. 925.

[12] _Battersby_ v. _Lawrence_, Car. & M. 277.

[13] Per _Bramwell, B._; _Ellis_ v. _Kelly_, 6 H. & N. 226; _Allison_ v. _Haydon_, 3 C. & P. 246; _Apothecaries Co._ v. _Lotinga_, 2 Moo. & R. 495: _Battersby_ v. _Lawrence_, Car. & M. 277.

[14] _Gensham_ v. _Germain_, 11 Moore 1; _Towne_ v. _Gresley_, 3 C. & P. 581; _Handey_ v. _Henson_, 4 C. & P. 110; _Morgan_ v. _Hallen_, 8 Ad. & E. 489.

[15] Stair I. 12; 5.

[16] _Adams_ v. _Stevens_, 26 Wend. 451.

[17] 21 & 22 Vict. cap. 90, sec. 27; _Simpson_ v. _Dismore_, 9 M. & W. 47; R. S. Ont. cap, 142, secs, 35–36.

[18] _Hewitt_ v. _Wilcox_, 1 Met. 154.

[19] _Adams_ v. _Stevens_, 26 Wend. 451; _Baxter_ v. _Gray_, 4 Scott, N. R. 374; _Mock_ v. _Kelly_, 3 Ala. 387; _Beekman_ v. _Planter_, 15 Barb. 550; _McPherson_ v. _Chedell_, 24 Wend. 15; _Simmons_ v. _Means_, 8 Sm. & Marsh, 397; _Smith_ v. _Watson_, 14 Vt. 322.

[20] Ordronaux, sec. 39; Willcocks on the Medical Profession, p. 111.

[21] _Tuson_ v. _Batting_, 3 Esp. N. P. 192; _Baxter_ v. _Gray_, 4 Scott, N. R. 374.

[22] Affaire Tallien Jour. du Palais, vol. 3; An. XI., XII. p. 210.

[23] _Collins_ v. _Grady_, 13 Louis. An. 95; 2 Louis. 331.

[24] _People_ v. _Monroe_, 4 Wend. 200; _Blogg_ v. _Parkers_, Ry. & M. N. P. C. 125.

[25] Story on Bailments, sec. 375.

[26] _Farnsworth_ v. _Garrard_, 1 Camp. 38; _Adler_ v. _Buckley_, 1 Swan (Tenn.) 69; _Gallagher_ v. _Thompson_, Wright (Ohio), 466.

[27] _Basten_ v. _Butter_, 7 East, 479.

[28] _Adler_ v. _Buckley_, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 69.

[29] _Hill_ v. _Featherstonhaugh_, 7 Bing. 574; _Seare_ v. _Prentise_, 8 East, 350.

[30] _Duffit_ v. _James_, cited _Baston_ v. _Butter_, 7 East, 480; _Kannen_ v. _McMullen_, 1 Peake, 85; _Bellinger_ v. _Craigue_, 31 Barb. 534; _Long_ v. _Morrison_, 14 Ind. 595.

[31] _Kannen_ v. _McMullen_, 1 Peake, 83; _Hupe_ v. _Phelps_, 2 Starkie, 424.

[32] _Piper_ v. _Menifee_, 12 B. Monr. 467.

[33] Ordronaux p. 92.

[34] _Landon_ v. _Humphrey_, 9 Conn. 209.

[35] Peake’s N. P. C. 83, 84.

[36] _Hughes_ v. _Hampton_, Const. Rep. (S. C.) 745.

[37] _Wheeler_ v. _Sims_, 5 Jur. 151; _Newton_ v. _Ker_, 14 Louis. An. 704.

[38] _Tuson_ v. _Batting_, 3 Esp. 191.

[39] _Miller_ v. _Beal_, 26 Ind. 234.

[40] _Collins_ v. _Graves_, 13 Louis. An. 95; _Villalobas_ v. _Mooney_, 2 Louis. 331.

[41] _Todd_ v. _Myers_, 40 Cal. 357.

[42] _Succession of Duclos_, 11 Louis. An. 406; _Sheldon_ v. _Johnson_, 40 Ia. 84; _Guerard_ v. _Jenkins_, 1 Strobh. 171; Ordronaux, sec. 47.

[43] _Roberts_ v. _Kerfoot_, cited Glenn’s Laws, p. 201; _Stackman_ v. _Vivian_, 34 Beav. 290.

[44] Ordronaux, sec. 43.

[45] _Bassett_ v. _Spofford_, 11 N. H. 167.

[46] _Smith_ v. _Hyde_, 19 Verm. 54; _Mock_ v. _Kelly_, 3 Alab. 387; Jones on Bailm. 99; Ordronaux, secs. 21 and 15.

[47] _McClallen_ v. _Adams_, 19 Pick, 333; Ordronaux, sec. 48.

[48] _Parkinson_ v. _Atkinson_, 31 L. J., C. P. 199; _Turner_ v. _Turner_, 5 Jur., N. S., 839.

[49] _Clark_ v. _Gill_, 1 Kay & J. 19; _Webb_ v. _Paige_, 1 Car. & Kir. 23.

[50] _Hammond_ v. _Stewart_, 1 Stra. 510.

[51] _In re Askin & Charteris_, 13 U. C. R. 498.

[52] _In re Harbottle & Wilson_, 30 U. C. R. 314.

[53] R. S. O. cap. 79, sec. 10.

[54] Iowa Code, 1873, sec. 1814; North Carolina Laws, 1871, cap. 139, sec. 13; Rhode Is. Pub. Stat. 1882, p. 733; Indiana Rev. Stat. 1881, p. 94, sec. 504.

[55] _Belts_ v. _Clifford_, Warwick Assizes, Lent, 1858.

[56] _Webb_ v. _Paige_, 1 Car. & Ker. 23.

[57] _Buchman_ v. _State_, 59 Ind. 1.

[58] In _Re Roelker_. 1 Sprague, 276.

[59] _People_ v. _Montgomery_, 13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.), 207.

[60] Juris. of Med. secs. 114–116; 1 Tay. Med. Jur. p. 19; 2 Phil. Ev. 4th Am. Ed., p. 828; 1 Redf. on Wills, pp. 154–155.

[61] Exparte _Dement_, 53 Ala. 389.

[62] _Summer_ v. _State_, 5 Tex. Ct. of App. 574.

[63] Smith on Contracts, 85.

[64] _Bradley_ v. _Dodge_, 45 How., N. Y., Pr. 57; _Craine_ v. _Bandoine_, 65 Barb., N. Y., 261; _Harrison_ v. _Grady_, 13 L. T., N. S., 369; _Spaun_ v. _Mercer_, 8 Neb., 537.

[65] _Watling_ v. _Walters_, 1 C. & P. 132.

[66] _Boyd_ v. _Sappington_, 6 Watts, 247.

[67] _Smith_ v. _Watson_, 14 Vt. 332.

[68] _Harrison_ v. _Grady_, 13 L. T., N. S. 369; _Cooper_ v. _Lloyd_, 6 C. B., N. S. 519; Roper on Husband and Wife, 2nd ed. v. ii. p. 114.

[69] _Harrison_ v. _Grady_, supra; _Thorpe_ v. _Shapleigh_, 67 Me. 235.

[70] _Webber_ v. _Spaunpake_, 2 Redf., N. Y., 258.

[71] _Berier_ v. _Galloway_, 71 Ill. 517; _Hartmann_ v. _Tegart_, 12 Kan. 177.

[72] _Potter_ v. _Virgil_, 67 Barb. N. Y., 578.

[73] _Wood_ v. _O’Kelley_, 8 Cush. 406.

[74] Parsons on Contracts, vol. i. p. 302–303; _Blackburn_ v. _Mackey_, 1 C. & P. 1.

[75] _Crantz_ v. _Gill_, 2 Esp. 471.

[76] _Rogers_ v. _Turner_, 59 Mo. 116; _Deane_ v. _Annis_, 14 Me. 26; _Swain_ v. _Tyler_, 26 Vt. 1.

[77] _Cooper_ v. _Phillips_, 4 C. & P. 581.

[78] 31 & 32 Vict. cap. 122, sec. 37.

[79] _Reg._ v. _Downes_, 1 Q. B. D. 25.

[80] _Reg._ v. _Hines_, 80 Cen. C. C. Sess. Pap. 309; _Reg._ v. _Wagstaffe_, 10 Cox. C. C. 530.

[81] _Reg._ v. _Morby_, 8 Q. B. D. 571.

[82] _Blackburn_ v. _Mackey_, 1 C. & P. 1; _Hoyt_ v. _Casey_, 14 Mass. 397.

[83] _Wennall_ v. _Adney_, 3 B. & P. 24; _Sellen_ v. _Norman_, 4 C. & P. 80.

[84] _Cooper_ v. _Phillips_, 4 C. & P. 581.

[85] _R._ v. _Smith_, 8 C. & P. 153.

[86] Glenn’s Law of Medical Men, pp. 197–199.

[87] _Cox_ v. _Midland Counties Railway_, 3 Ex. 268; _Cooper_ v. _N. Y. C._ 13 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 276.

[88] _Walker_ v. _Great Western Railway_, 2 L. R. Ex. 228; _Cairo, etc., Railroad Company_ v. _Mahoney_, 82 Ill. 73; _Stephenson_ v. _N. Y. & H. R. R. Co._, 2 Duer. 341.

[89] Per Parke, B., and Rolfe, B., in _Cox_ v. _Mid. Co. Railway_, supra.

[90] _Corsi_ v. _Maretzck_, 4 E. D. Smith 1 (1855).

[91] 21 & 22 Vict. cap. 90, secs. 31, 32; _Wagstaffe_ v. _Sharpe_, 3 M. & W. 521; _Shearwood_ v. _Hay_, 5 Ad. & E. 383; _Turner_ v. _Reynall_, 14 C. B. N. S. 328.

[92] 21 & 22 Vict. cap. 90, sec. 15.

[93] Enc. Brit. Vol. xv. p. 799.

[94] R. S. O. cap. 142.

[95] _Reg._ v. _Coll. Phy. & Sur._, 44 Ont. Q. B. 564.

[96] _Reg._ v. _Hessel_, 44 Ont. Q. B. 53 _Reg._ v. _Campbell_, Q. B. D. (Ont.) June, 1883.

[97] _Reg._ v. _Tefft_, 45 Ont. Q. B. 144.

[98] _Wilmot_ v. _Shaw_, 2 C. L. Times, 96.

[99] _Reg._ v. _Coll. P. & S._ 16 C. L. J. 30; R. S. O. cap. 142, sec. 23.

[100] _Re Heinemann’s Appeal_, 96 Pa. St. 112.

[101] Ordronaux’s Inst. of Med., secs. 5 and 6; _Sutton_ v. _Tracy_, 1 Mich. 243.

[102] N. Y. Laws, cap. 436.

[103] _Corsi_ v. _Maretzek_, 4 E. D. Smith, 1.

[104] _Bradbury_ v. _Bardin_, 35 Conn. 577.

[105] _Bowman_ v. _Woods_, 1 Iowa, 441.

[106] _Smith_ v. _Lane_, 24 Hun, 632.

[107] _Bibber_ v. _Simpson_, 59 Me. 181; _Thistleton_ v. _Frewer_, 31 L. J. Ex. 230.

[108] _Patten_ v. _Wiggin_, 51 Me. 594.

[109] _Bowman_ v. _Woods_, 1 Iowa, 441.

[110] _Horton_ v. _Green_, 64 N. C. 64.

[111] Ordronaux, sec. 8.

[112] _Sutton_ v. _Tracy_, 1 Mich. 243; _Reynolds_ v. _Graves_, 3 Wisc. 416.

[113] _Langdon_ v. _Mut. Life Ins. Co._, 5 Hun. N. Y. 1.

[114] Per Cur., in _Dr. Greonvelt’s_ case, 1 Lord Ray, 213.

[115] Glenn, p. 251; Addison on Torts, Ed. 3rd, p. 17.

[116] Glenn, p. 252; Erle, C.J., _R._ v. _Noakes_, 4 F. & F. 920.

[117] _Gardiner_ v. _Heartt_, 3 Denio, 232–236; McClelland’s Civil Malpractice, cap. 17.

[118] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 3.

[119] _Carpenter_ v. _Blake_, 60 Barb. 488.

[120] McClelland, cap. 17.

[121] Wharton, sec. 731.

[122] _Wilmot_ v. _Howard_, 32 Vt. 447; _Long_ v. _Morrison_, 14 Ind. 595; _Patten_ v. _Wiggin_, 51 Me. 594.

[123] _Hancke_ v. _Hooper_, 7 C. & P. 81.

[124] _Patten_ v. _Wiggin_, 51 Me. 594.

[125] _Leighton_ v. _Sargent_, 7 Fost. 460; _Simonds_ v. _Henry_, 39 Me. 155; _Hancke_ v. _Hooper_, 7 C. & P. 81; _McCandless_ v. _McWha_, 22 Pa. St. 261; _Carpenter_ v. _Blake_, 60 Barb. 488; _Utley_ v. _Burns_, 70 Ill. 162; _Barnes_ v. _Means_, 82 Ill. 379.

[126] _Heath_ v. _Gibson_, 3 Oregon, 64.

[127] _Slater_ v. _Baker_, 2 Wils. 359; _McCandless_ v. _McWha_, sup.; Wh. and Still. Medic. Juris. sec. 1087.

[128] Bouvier’s Institutes, secs. 1004–1005.

[129] Ordronaux’s Jurisp. of Medicine, sec. 23.

[130] _Rich_ v. _Pierpoint_, 3 F. & F. 35.

[131] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 734.

[132] Ordronaux, sec. 22.

[133] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 640.

[134] _Small_ v. _Howard_, 128 Mass. 131; _Hathorn_ v. _Richmond_, 48 Vt. 557.

[135] Woodward, J., in _McCandless_ v. _McWha_, 22 Pa. Rep. 261.

[136] _Mich. Cent. Rw._ v. _Hasseneyer_, 48 Mich. 205; _Fox_ v. _Glastonbury_, 29 Conn. 204.

[137] Shearman & Red., sec. 432.

[138] _Patten_ v. _Wiggen_, 51 Me. 594.

[139] _Rich_ v. _Pierpoint_, per Erle, C.J., 3 F. & F. 35.

[140] _Carpenter_ v. _Blake_, 60 Barb. 488.

[141] Ordronaux’s Jur. of Med., sec. 68.

[142] _Potter_ v. _Warner_, 91 Pa. St. 362; 36 Am. Rep. 668.

[143] _Bowman_ v. _Woods_, 1 Greene (Iowa), 441; _Corsi_ v. _Maretzek_, 4 E. D. Smith, 1.

[144] _Sutton_ v. _Tracy_, 1 Mich. 243.

[145] _Mertz_ v. _Detweiler_, 8 W. & Serg. 376; _Seare_ v. _Prentice_, 8 East, 348; _Carpenter_ v. _Blake_, 60 Barb. 518.

[146] _Hunter_ v. _Blount_, 27 Ga. 76; _Leighton_ v. _Sargent_, 7 Foster, N. H. 476.

[147] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 29.

[148] _Hood_ v. _Grimes_, 13 B. Monr. 188.

[149] _Ruddock_ v. _Lowe_, 4 F. & F. 519; _R._ v. _Simpson_, 4 C. & P. 407, note.

[150] Shearman & Redfield on Negligence, sec. 432; _Ritchey_ v. _West_, 3 Ill. 385; _Shiells_ v. _Blackburne_, 1 H. Bl. 159; _Wilson_ v. _Brett_, 11 M .2 & W. 113; _Pippin_ v. _Shepherd_, 11 Price, 400.

[151] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 731 n.

[152] Jur. of Med. sec. 27.

[153] _R._ v. _Macleod_, 12 Cox. C. C. 534.

[154] _Perionowsky_ v. _Freeman_, 4 F. & F. 977.

[155] _Shiells_ v. _Blackburne_, 1 H. Bl. 159.

[156] _Boynton_ v. _Somersworth_, 58 N. H. 321.

[157] McClelland, Civil Malpractice; Wharton on Negligence, sec. 737; _Leighton_ v. _Sargent_, 7 Fost. 460; _McCandless_ v. _McWha_, 22 Pa. St. 261.

[158] _Geiselman_ v. _Scott_, 25 Oh. St. 86.

[159] _Parker_ v. _Adams_, 12 Metc. 417.

[160] _Hibbard_ v. _Thompson_, 109 Mass. 286.

[161] _Cleveland, etc., Rw._ v. _Terry_, 8 Oh. St. 570.

[162] _Ch. & R. I. Rw._ v. _McKean_, 40 Ill. 218; _Eakin_ v. _Brown_, 1 E. D. Smith, 36.

[163] _Clark_ v. _Kerwin_, 4 E. D. Smith, 21; _Parker_ v. _Adams_, 12 Mete 417.

[164] _Kerwhaker_ v. _Cleveland, etc., Rw._ 3 Oh. 172; _Ind. and Cin. Rw._ v. _Caldwell_, 9 Ind. 397.

[165] _Ch. etc., Rw._ v. _Goss_, 17 Wisc. 428.

[166] Chapman, C.J., _Hibbard_ v. _Thompson_, 109 Mass. 288.

[167] _Gramm_ v. _Boener_, 56 Ind. 497.

[168] _Fisk_ v. _Wait_, 104 Mass. 71.

[169] _People_ v. _N. Y. Hospital_, 3 Abb. N. C. 229.

[170] _Chamberland_ v. _Morgan_, 68 Penn. St. 168.

[171] _Wilmot_ v. _Howard_, 39 Vt. 447.

[172] _Perionowsky_ v. _Freeman_, 4 F. & F. 977.

[173] _Potter_ v. _Warner_, 91 Penn. St. 362.

[174] _Slater_ v. _Baker_, 2 Wils. 359.

[175] _Carpenter_ v. _Blake_, 60 Barb. 488.

[176] _Hunter_ v. _Ogden_, 31 U. C. R. 132.

[177] _Carpenter_ v. _Blake_, Sup.

[178] _Ballon_ v. _Prescott_, 64 Me. 305.

[179] Ordronaux, sec. 14; Shearman & Red., sec. 441.

[180] _Longmeid_ v. _Holliday_, 6 Ex. 767.

[181] _Pippin_ v. _Sheppard_, 11 Price, 400.

[182] _Gladwell_ v. _Steggall_, 5 Bing. N. C. 733.

[183] Wharton on Negligence, sec. 735.

[184] _Craig_ v. _Chambers_, 17 Ohio St. 253.

[185] _Fields_ v. _Rutherford_, 29 (Ont.) C. P. 113; _Metropolitan R. W. Co._ v. _Jackson_, L. R. 3 App. 193, 197.

[186] _Fawcett_ v. _Mothersell_, 14 C. P. (Ont.) 104; _Jackson_ v. _Hyde_, 28 U. C. R. 295.

[187] Ordronaux, sec. 54.

[188] Ordronaux, sec. 86.

[189] _Jones_ v. _Northmore_, 46 Vt. 587.

[190] _Whalen_ v. _St. Louis, etc., Ry._, 60 Mo. 323; _Indianapolis, etc., Ry._ v. _Gaston_, 58 Ind. 224; _Leighton_ v. _Sargent_, 11 Foster, N. H. 120.

[191] _Johnson_ v. _Wills_, 6 Nev. 224.

[192] _Curtis_ v. _Rochester & S. Ry._ 20 Barb. 282.

[193] L. R., 4 Q. B. D. 407.

[194] L. R., 5 C. P. D. 280.

[195] _Holmes_ v. _Halde_, 74 Me. 28.

[196] _Jenkins_ v. _French_, 58 N. H. 532; Broom’s Maxims, 702. But see _Hegerich_ v. _Keddie_, 32 Hun, 141; _Yertore_ v. _Wiswall_, 16 How. Pr. 8.

[197] Lord Campbell’s Act, 9 & 10 Vict. cap. 93; R. S. O. cap. 128; _Lett_ v. _St. Lawrence & Ottawa Rw._, 1 Ont. Rep. 545; _Blake_ v. _Midland Rw._, 18 Q. B. 93; _Bradburn_ v. _G. W. R._, L. R., 10 Ex. 3.

[198] _Morse_ v. _Auburn & S. Rw._, 10 Barb. 623.

[199] Glenn, p. 259

[200] _R._ v. _Long_, 4 C. & P. 398; _R._ v. _Crick_, 1 F. & F. 519.

[201] 4 Coke Inst. 251; 4 Bla. Com. 197; 1 Hale, P. C. 429.

[202] _Rex_ v. _Van Butchell_, 3 C. & P. 629; _Rice_ v. _The State_, 8 Mo. 561; _Com._ v. _Thompson_, 6 Mass. 134.

[203] _Rex_ v. _Webb_, 1 M. & Rob. 405, See also _Rex_ v. _Simpson_, 4 C. & P. 407 n.

[204] Bolland, B., in _Rex_ v. _Spiller_, 5 C. & P. 19; _Lamphier_ v. _Philpot_, per Tindal, C.J, 8 C. & P. 575.

[205] Per Coleridge, J.; _Rex_ v. _Spilling_, 2 M. & Rob. 107.

[206] _R._ v. _Chamberlaine_, 10 Cox, C. C. 486; Blackburn, J.

[207] _State_ v. _Shulz_, 55 Ia. 628.

[208] _Rex_ v. _Williamson_, 3 C. & P. 635; 14 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 297.

[209] Cap. 4, sec. 16.

[210] _Rex_ v. _St. John Long_, 4 C. & P. 378; 19 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 404.

[211] Wharton on Homicide, sec. 148.

[212] _Rex_ v. _St. John Long_, 4 C. & P. 423; 19 E. C. L. R. 440.

[213] _Rice_ v. _The State_, 8 Mo. 561.

[214] Ordronaux, secs. 80, 77. But see _R._ v. _Nancy Simpson_, 4 C. & P. 407 n.

[215] _Rex_ v. _Markuss_, 4 F. & F. 356.

[216] 38 Ark. 605.

[217] _Com._ v. _Thompson_, 6 Mass. 134.

[218] _Rice_ v. _State_, 8 Mo. 561.

[219] 55 Iowa, 698.

[220] _R._ v. _Webb_, 1 M. & R. 405; Wharton on Homicide, sec. 405.

[221] _R._ v. _Lee_, 4 F. & F. 63; _Com._ v. _McPike_, 3 Cush. 181; _Com._ v. _Hackett_, 2 Allen, 137; Wharton on Homicide, sec. 385.

[222] Wharton on Homicide, sec. 554.

[223] Wharton on Homicide, sec. 557.

[224] Medical Jurisprudence, sec. 1059.

[225] _Duchess of Kingston’s Case_, 20 Howell St. Tr. 573; _Wilson_ v. _Rastall_, 4 T. R. 760; _Greenough_ v. _Gaskill_, 1 Myl. & K. 103; _R._ v. _Gibbons_, 1 C. & P. 97; _Broad_ v. _Pitt_, 3 C. & P. 579.

[226] _Duchess of Kingston’s Case_, supra.

[227] Belloc. Cours de Med. leg. 17.

[228] 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 248; _Campan_ v. _North_, 39 Mich. 606.

[229] _Harris_ v. _Russel_, 16 Ind. 209; _Staunton_ v. _Parker_, 19 Hun. 55; _Fraser_ v. _Jenneson_, 42 Mich. 206.

[230] 2 N. Y. Rev. St. 406, sec. 73; _Hunn_ v. _Hunn_, 1 Thomp. & C. 499.

[231] _Pierson_ v. _People_, 79 N. Y. 434.

[232] _Cohen_ v. _Continental, etc., Ins. Co._, 41 N. Y. Super. Ct. 296; _Grattan_ v. _Metropolitan L. Ins. Co._, 80 N. Y. 281.

[233] _Hewitt_ v. _Prime_, 21 Wend. 79.

[234] _Edington_ v. _Ætna Life Ins. Co._, 77 N. Y. 564, but see _Edington_ v. _Ætna Life Ins. Co._, 67 N. Y. 185.

[235] _Lee_ v. _Hammerton_, 10 L. T.; N. S. 730; _Mahony_ v. _Nat. Widow’s Life Assurance Fund_, L. R. 6 C. P. 252; _Baker_ v. _London & S. W. Railway_, L. R. 3 Q. B. 91; _Cossey_ v. _L. B. & C._, L. R. 5 C. P. 146; _Skinner_ v. _G. N. R._, L. R. 9 Ex. 298.

[236] _Aveson_ v. _Lord Kinnaird_, 6 East 188; Taylor on Evidence, secs. 580, 581, 7th ed.

[237] _Bacon_ v. _Charlton_, 7 Cush. 586; _Chapen_ v. _Marlborough_, 9 Gray 244; _Barber_ v. _Merriam_, 11 Allen 322.

[238] _Kennard_ v. _Burton_, 25 Me. 39; _Gray_ v. _McLaughlin_, 26 Ia. 279; _Brown_ v. _N. Y. C._, 32 N. Y. 597; _Caldwell_ v. _Murphy_, 11 N. Y. 344; _Barber_ v. _Merriam_, sup.; _Denlon_ v. _State_, 1 Swan 279; _Matteson_ v. _N. Y. C._, 35 N. Y. 487.

[239] _Chapin_ v. _Malborough_, sup.; _Lush_ v. _McDaniel_, 13 Ired. L. 485; _Rogers_ v. _Cain_, 30 Tex. 284; _Wilson_ v. _Granby_, 47 Conn.

[240] _Witt_ v. _Witt_, 3 Sw. & Trist. 143.

[241] _Ill. Cen. R. R._ v. _Sutton_, 42 Ill. 438.

[242] _Rowell_ v. _Lowell_, 11 Gray 420.

[243] _Roosa_ v. _Boston Loan Co._, 132 Mass. 439; _Quaife_ v. _C. & N. W. R._, 48 Wis. 513.

[244] _Denton_ v. _State_, 1 Swan 279.

[245] Greenleaf on Evid. sec. 436; Ordronaux sec. 124; Glenn, p. 284.

[246] _Collier_ v. _Simpson_, 5 C. & P. 73; _Reg._ v. _Thomas_, 13 Cox Cr. Cas. 77; Redfield on Wills, p. 145; _People_ v. _Hall_, 48 Mich. 486; Rogers on Expert Evidence, sec. 180; _Brown_ v. _Sheppard_, 13 U. C. R. 178.

[247] _Bowman_ v. _Woods_, 1 Ia. 44; _Luning_ v. _State_, 1 Chandler (Wisc.) 264; _Ripon_ v. _Bittel_, 30 Wisc. 362; _Stirling_ v. _Thorp_, 54 Wisc.

[248] _Con. Mut. Life Ins. Co._ v. _Ellis_, 89 Ill. 516; Expert Testimony, sec. 182.

[249] _Com._ v. _Sturtevant_, 117 Mass. 123.

[250] _Marshall_ v. _Brown_, 15 N. W. Rep. 55.

[251] _Brown_ v. _Sheppard_, 13 U. C. R. 178.

[252] _Pinney_ v. _Cohill_, 12 N. W. Rep. 862; _Ripon_ v. _Bittell_, 30 Wisc. 362.

[253] _Ashworth_ v. _Kittridge_, 12 Cush. 193.

[254] _Reg._ v. _Crouch_, 1 Cox Cr. Cas. 94; _Washburn_ v. _Cuddihy_, 8 Gray 430; _Huffman_ v. _Click_, 77 N. C. 54; _Fraser_ v. _Jennison_, 42 Mich. 206, 214; _People_ v. _Wheeler_, 9 Pac. Coast L. J. 581; _Robinson_ v. _N. Y. C._, 24 A. L. J. 357.

[255] 46 Conn. 330.

[256] _People_ v. _Wheeler_, 9 Pac. C. L. Jour. 581.

[257] See also _Collier_ v. _Simpson_, 5 C. & P. 73; _Ordway_ v. _Haynes_, 50 N. H. 159; _People_ v. _Anderson_, 44 Cal. 65; _Carter_ v. _State_, 2 Cart. 617; _Gale_ v. _Rector_, 5 Bradw. 484; _Harris_ v. _Panama R. Co._, 3 Bosw. 7.

[258] _State_ v. _Hoyt_, 46 Conn. 330.

[259] _Harvey_ v. _State_, 40 Ind. 516; _Wade_ v. _De Witt_, 20 Texas 398; _State_ v. _West_, 1 Houston Cr. Cas. Del. 371.

[260] _Legg_ v. _Drake_, 1 Ohio St. 286.

[261] Per Loomis, J., _State_ v. _Hoyt_, sup.; _Wade_ v. _De Witt_, 20 Tex. 398, 400; _Luning_ v. _State_, sup.; Experts and Expert Testimony by U. C. Moak, 24 A. L. J. 267.

[262] _Yoe_ v. _State_, 49 Ill. 410.

[263] _Russell_ on Crimes, 4th ed. vol. iii. p. 250.

[264] _Higham_ v. _Ridgway_, 10 East 109.

[265] Taylor’s Evid., vol. ii., sec. 1259; Alison’s Criminal Law of Scotland, 542; Wharton’s Evid., vol. i. p. 492.

[266] _Sizer_ v. _Burt_, 4 Denio, 426; _Anthony_ v. _Smith_, 2 Bos. (N.Y.) 503, 508; _Fraser_ v. _Jameson_, 42 Mich. 206. 223.

[267] 1 Smith Lead. Cas., 6th Ed. 509; _Kennedy_ v. _People_, 30 N. Y. 245.

[268] _Chicago, etc._, v. _McGiven_, 78 Ill. 347; _Hartford Pro. Ins. Co._ v. _Harmer_, 20 Oh. St. 457.

[269] _Commonwealth_ v. _Rodgers_, 7 Metc. 5, per Shaw, C.J.

[270] 1 Greenl. Evid., sec. 440; _Jones_ v. _White_, 11 Hump. 268.

[271] Plowden, 125; Year Books, vol. v.

[272] _Whittaker_ v. _Parker_, 42 Ia. 586; _State_ v. _Watson_, 65 Me. 74; _Rutherford_ v. _Morris_, 77 Ill. 404; _Tracy_ Peerage, 10 Cl. & Fin. 191.

[273] Taylor on Evidence, sec. 50, Ed. 1872.

[274] Best on Evidence, sec. 574.

[275] _State_ v. _Wood_, 53 N. H. 484; _Masons_ v. _Fuller_, 45 Vt. 29; _New Orleans, etc., Rw._ v. _Allbretton_, 38 Miss. 247; _Re Toomes_, 54 Cal. 515.

[276] _Fairchild_ v. _Bascomb_, 35 Vt. 410; _Polk_ v. _State_, 36 Ark. 117; _Roberts_ v. _Johnson_, 58 N. Y. 613.

[277] _Hathaway_ v. _Nat. Life Ins. Co._, 48 Vt. 335, 351; _Fairchild_ v. _Bascomb_, supra.

[278] _Castner_ v. _Sliker_, 33 N. J. (L.) 97; _State_ v. _Reddick_, 7 Kan. 143; _State_ v. _Henkle_, 6 Ia. 380; _State_ v. _Cook_, 17 Kan. 391.

[279] _Horton_ v. _Green_, 64 N. C. 64.

[280] _Emerson_ v. _Lowell Gas Light Co._, 6 Allen, 146.

[281] _Heald_ v. _Wing_, 5 Me. 392.

[282] _Harris_ v. _Panama R. R. Co._, 3 Bosw. (N. Y.), 77; _Fairchild_ v. _Bascomb_, 35 Vt. 398.

[283] _Re Toomes_, 54 Cal. 575.

[284] Greenleaf’s Evidence, 12th Ed., I. p. 483; _Livingstone’s case_, 14 Grat. 592.

[285] _Lorg_ v. _First German Congregation_, 63 Pa. St. 156; _Hills_ v. _Home Ins. Co._, 129 Mass., 544, 551.

[286] _Lester_ v. _Pittsford_, 7 Vt. 161; _Mendum_ v. _Com._ 6 Rand. 704; _Tullis_ v. _Kidd_, 12 Ala. 648; _Sinclair_ v. _Rourk_, 14 Ind. 540; _Winans_ v. _N. Y., etc., R. R. Co._, 21 How. (U. S.) 88; _Boardman_ v. _Woodman_, 47 N. H. 121; _Davis_ V. _State_, 35 Ind. 496.

[287] _Forgery_ v. _First Nat. Bank_, 66 Ind. 123, 125; _McEwen_ v. _Bigelow_, 40 Mich. 217; _Kilborne_ v. _Jennings_, 38 Iowa, 533.

[288] _Mitchell_ v. _State_, 58 Ala. 418; _Forgery_ v. _First Nat. Bank_, 66 Ind. 123; _Parnell_ v. _Commonwealth_, 86 Pa. St. 269; _Carter_ v. _Baker_, 1 Sawy. (U. S. C. C.) 525.

[289] _Tatum_ v. _Mohr_, 21 Ark. 355; _Getchell_ v. _Hill_, 21 Minn. 464.

[290] Ordronaux Principles, sec. 108–110.

[291] _St. Louis Mut. Ins. Co._ v. _Graves_, 6 Bush. 290.

[292] _Corsi_ v. _Maretzek_, 4 E. D. Smith, 1.

[293] Wharton on Mental Unsoundness, sec. 282.

[294] _Keith_ v. _Lothrop_, 10 Cush. 453; _Clark_ v. _State_, 12 Ohio, 483.

[295] Rules Relating to Opinion Evidence, 26 A. L. J. 486; _State_ v. _Smith_, 32 Me. 370; _Young_ v. _Makepeace_, 103 Mass. 50.

[296] _State_ v. _Powell_, 7 N. J. (L.), 269; _Davis_ v. _State_, 38 Ind. 37; _Gardner_ v. _People_, 6 Parker, C. C. 202; overruling, _Wilson_ v. _People_, 4 Park., C. C. 619; _State_ v. _Jones_, 68 N. C. 443.

[297] _State_ v. _Smith_, Supra; _Regina_ v. _Stitt_, 30 U. C. C. P. 30; _State_ v. _Wood_, 53 N. H. 484.

[298] _State_ v. _Bowman_, 78 N. C. 509; _State_ v. _Slagh_, 83 N. C. 630.

[299] _Com._ v. _Sturtevant_, 117 Mass. 122.

[300] _Newell_ v. _Doty_, 33 N. Y. 83; _Buell_ v. _N. Y. C._, 31 N. Y. Ct. of App. 314; _Matteson_ v. _N. Y. C._ 62 Barb. 366; S. C. 35 N. Y. 487.

[301] 11 Allen, 322.

[302] _R._ v. _Whitehead_, 3 C. & K. 203; _Rich_ v. _Pierpont_. 3 F. & F. 36; _Twombly_ v. _Leach_, 11 Cush. 405.

[303] _Mertz_ v. _Detweeler_, 8 W. & S. 376; _Wright_ v. _Hardy_, 22 Wisc. 368.

[304] _Leighton_ v. _Sargent_, 11 Fost. N. H. 120; _Williams_ v. _Poppleton_, 3 Oregon, 139; _Hoener_ v. _Koch_, 84 Ill. 408; _Ramadge_ v. _Ryan_, 9 Bing. 333.

[305] _State_ v. _Clark_, 12 Ired. 151; _Page_ v. _Barker_, 40 N. H. 477.

[306] _Ramadge_ v. _Ryan_, 9 Bing. 335; _R._ v. _Searle_, 1 M. & Rob. 75; _Fenwick_ v. _Bell_, 1 C. & Kir. 312; _Gibson_ v. _Williams_, 4 Wend. 320; _Morse_ v. _State_, 6 Conn. 9.

[307] _Kennedy_ v. _People_, 39 N. Y. 245.

[308] _New England Glass Co._ v. _Lovell_, 7 Cush. 319.

[309] _Ramadge_ v. _Ryan_, supra; _Campbell_ v. _Richards_, 5 B. & Ad. 840.

[310] _Reynolds_ v. _Robinson_, 64 N. Y. 595; _Shafer_ v. _Deans ad’mor_, 29 Ia. 144.

[311] _Linn_ v. _Sigsbee_, 67 Ill. 75; see _Bradbury_ v. _Barden_, 35 Conn. 580.

[312] 2 Taylor’s Evid., sec. 1259; 1 Wharton’s Evid., sec. 492.

[313] Bost. Med. and Sur. Journ., Feb. 25. 1869.

[314] Grier, J., in _Winans_ v. _N. Y. & E. R._ 21 How. (U. S.) 88.

[315] Taylor’s Med. Jur. 6 Am. Ed. 53.

[316] Vol. i. p. 103.

[317] Redfield on Wills, vol. i. cap. 3, sec. 13.

[318] Sec. 195.

[319] De Divinatione, II. 58.

[320] _Com._ v. _Rodgers_, 7 Metc. 5.

[321] Wharton on Mental Unsoundness, sec. 293.

[322] _Thomas_ v. _State_, 40 Texas, 65; _Parmell_ v. _Com._, 86 Pa. St. 260; _Jarrett_ v. _Jarrett_, 11 W. Va. 627; _Flynt_ v. _Bodenhamer_, 80 N. C. 205.

[323] _Rex_ v. _Searle_, 1 Mood. & Rob. 75; _R._ v. _Offord_, 5 C. & P. 168; _McAllister_ v. _State_, 17 Ala. 434; _Delafield_ v. _Parish_, 25 N. Y. 9; _Com._ v. _Rodgers_, 7 Metc. 5; _Clark_ v. _State_, 12 Oh. 483; _Davis_ v. _State_, 35 Ind. 496.

[324] _Puryear_ v. _Reese_, 46 Tenn. 21; _White_ v. _Bailey_, 10 Mich. 155; _Dickenson_ v. _Barber_, 9 Mass. 225.

[325] _People_ v. _McGann_, 3 Parker Cr. Cas. 272, 298.

[326] _White_ v. _Bailey_, 10 Mich. 155; _Fairfield_ v. _Bascomb_, 35 Vt. 398.

[327] _R._ v. _Richards_, 1 F. & F. 87.

[328] _Lovatt_ v. _Tribe_, 3 F. & F. 9.

[329] _R._ v. _Higginson_, 1 Car. & R. 129; _R._ v. _Searle_, 1 Mood. & Rob. 75; _Malton_ v. _Nesbit_, 1 C. & P. 72; _R._ v. _Wright_, Russ. & Ry. 456; see also, _Tingley_ v. _Congill_, 48 Mo. 297.

[330] _R._ v. _Frances_, 4 Cox C. C. 57; _R._ v. _Searle_, sup.

[331] _Page_ v. _State_, 61 Ala. 18; _Davis_ v. _State_, 38 Md. 41.

[332] _Fairchild_ v. _Bascomb_, 35 Vt. 398; _State_ v. _Windsor_, 5 Harring. 512; _U. S._ v. _McGlue_, 1 Curtis C. C. 1; _McAlister_ v. _State_, 17 Ala. 434; _Woodbury_ v. _Obear_, 7 Gray, 467; _Hunt_ v. _Lowell Gas Light Company_, 8 Allan, 169.

[333] 10 Clark & Fin. 200.

[334] _Com._ v. _Rodgers_, 7 Metc. 5.

[335] _U. S._ v. _McGlue_, 1 Cur. C. C. 1.

[336] _Burton_ v. _Scott_, 3 Rand. 399; 27 A. L. J. 148.

[337] _Com._ v. _Rich_, 14 Gray, 335; _Hastings_ v. _Rider_, 99 Mass. 625; _Russell_ v. _State_, 53 Miss. 36.

[338] _Heald_ v. _Wing_, 5 Me. 392; _Whetherbee_ v. _Whetherbee_, 38 Vt. 454.

[339] 27 Alb. L. J. 126.

[340] Glenn’s Laws of Med. Men, p. 212.

[341] _Cawdry_ v. _Highley_, Cro. Car. 270; Godb. 441.

[342] _Bill_ v. _Neal_, 1 Sev. 52.

[343] _Flower’s_ Case, Cro. Car. 211; _Wharton_ v. _Brook_, Vent. 21.

[344] _Southee_ v. _Denny_, 1 Ex. 196.

[345] _Bergold_ v. _Puckta_, 2 Thomp. & C. N. Y. 532.

[346] _Johnson_ v. _Robertson_, 8 Port. R. 586; _Poe_ v. _Mondford_, Cro. Eliz. 620; _Tutty_ v. _Alewin_, 11 Mod. 221; _Secord_ v. _Harris_, 18 Barb. 425; see, also, _Watson_ v. _Vanderlash_, Het. 69.

[347] _Davis_ v. _Ockham_, Sty. 235; _Edsall_ v. _Russell_, 4 M. & G. 1090.

[348] _Southee_ v. _Denny_, 1 Ex. 196; _Ramadge_ v. _Ryan_, 9 Bing. 333.

[349] _Long_ v. _Chubb_, 5 C. & P. 55; _Allen_ v. _Eaton_, 1 Roll. Abr. 54; _Goddart_ v. _Haselfoot_, 1 Viner’s Abr. (S. A.) pl. 12; _White_ v. _Carroll_, 42 N. Y. 161.

[350] _Ayre_ v. _Craven_, 2 Ad. & E. 2.

[351] _Clarke_ v. _Freeman_, 11 Beav. 112; _Ramadge_ v. _Wakley_, cited 9 Bing. 333.

[352] Odgers on Libel and Slander, p. 50.

[353] _Hunter_ v. _Sharpe_, 4 F. & F. 983; and see _Morrison_ v. _Harmer_, 4 Scott, 524.

[354] _Macleod_ v. _Wakley_, 3 C. & P. 311.

[355] _Sugoe’s_ Case, Hetl. 175; _Edsall_ v. _Russell_, 4 M. & G. 1090.

[356] _Rodgers_ v. _Cline_, 56 Miss. 808; _Camp_ v. _Martin_, 23 Conn. 86; _Jones_ v. _Diver_, 22 Ind. 184.

[357] _Collins_ v. _Carnegie_, 1 A. & E. 695.

[358] _Skirving_ v. _Ross_, 31 C. P. (Ont.) 423.

[359] _Ayre_ v. _Craven_, 2 A. & E. 2; _Dixon_ v. _Smith_, 5 H. & N. 450.

[360] Anon. 1 Ham. 83; _Foster_ v. _Small_, 3 Whart. 138.

[361] _Clay_ v. _Roberts_, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 580.

[362] Odgers on Slander, p. 69; _Rutherford_ v. _Evans_, 4 C. & P. 79; _Collins_ v. _Carnegie_, 1 Ad. & E. 697; _Moises_ v. _Thornton_, 3 Esp. 4; _Wakley_ v. _Healey_, 4 Ex. 53.

[363] _Van Tassel_ v. _Capson_, 1 Denio. 250; _Kinney_ v. _Nash_, 3 Comst. 177; _Ayre_ v. _Craven_, sup.

[364] Glenn’s Laws of Med. Men, 230; _Harrison_ v. _Bush_, 5 El. & B. 344.

[365] Per Pigot, C.B., in _Bell_ v. _Parke_, 10 Ir. C. L. Rep., N. S., 288.

[366] _Humphreys_ v. _Stilwell_, 2 F. & F. 590; _Murphey_ v. _Kellett_, 13 Ir. C. L. Rep. N. S. 688.

[367] _Alpen_ v. _Morton_, 21 Oh. St. 536.

[368] _Clarke_ v. _Hawke_, 9 Grant, 52; _Denison_ v. _Denison_, 13 Gr. 596; _Hoghton_ v. _Hoghton_, 15 Beav. 299; _Haguenin_ v. _Baseley_, 14 Ves. 300; Story, I Eq. Jur. sec. 314. But see _Andeureid’s_ Appeal, 89 Pa. St. 114; _McEwan_ v. _Milne_, 5 Ont. R. 100.

[369] Law Rep. 1 Ch. 252.

[370] _Hoghton_ v. _Hoghton_, sup.; _Dent_ v. _Bennett_, 4 Myl. & C. 276; _Cadwallader_ v. _West_, 48 Mo. 483.

[371] _Clarke_ v. _Hawke_, sup.; _Dent_ v. _Bennett_, sup.

[372] _Dent_ v. _Bennett_, sup.; _Gibson_ v. _Russell_, 2 Y. & Coll. C. C. 104; _Popham_ v. _Brooke_, 5 Russ. 104.

[373] _Cadwallader_ v. _West_, 48 Mo. 483.

[374] _Allan_ v. _Davis_, 4 De G. & Sim. 133.

[375] _Billage_ v. _Southbee_, 9 Hare, 534, 540.

[376] _Peacock_ v. _Kesnot_, 8 L. T. 292; _Wright_ v. _Proud_, 13 Ves. 136.

[377] _Pratt_ v. _Barker_, 1 Sim. 1.

[378] _Mitchell_ v. _Homfray_, 8 Q. B. D. 587.

[379] _Aheare_ v. _Hogan_, Dru. 322.

[380] _Doggett_ v. _Lane_, 12 Mo. 215.

[381] _Middleton_ v. _Sherbourne_, 4 Y. & Coll. 358.

[382] _Jones_ v. _Godrich_, 5 Moo. P. C. 16.

[383] _Farlar_ v. _Lane_, 29 L. T. 2; _Jones_ v. _Godrich_, 5 Moo. P. C. 16; _Reece_ v. _Pressey_, 2 Jur. N. S. 380.

[384] _Greville_ v. _Lylee_, 7 Moo. P. C. 320; _Durnell_ v. _Corfield_, 3 L. T. 323; 1 Robarts, 51; _Major_ v. _Knight_, 4 N. C. 661.

[385] _Ashwell_ v. _Lomi_, L. R. 2 P. & D., 477. See also _Crispell_ v. _Dubois_, 4 Barb. 393.

[386] _Hides_ v. _Hides_, 65 How. Pr. Rep. 17; _Middleton_ v. _Sherburne_, 4 Y. & Coll. 358.

[387] _Brown_ v. _State_, 9 Baxter, 45.

[388] _Seavey_ v. _Preble_, 64 Me. 120.

[389] 3 Co. Inst. 203; 20 A. L. J. 320.

[390] _Reg._ v. _Cuddy_, 1 C. & K. 210; _Reg._ v. _Coney_, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. p. 569.

[391] _R._ v. _Case_, 19 L. J. M. C. 174; _R._ v. _Stanton_, 1 Car. & Kir. 415.

[392] _Rex_ v. _Rosinski_, 1 Moo. C. C. 19.

[393] _De May_ v. _Roberts_, 46 Mich. 160; 41 Am. Rep. 154.

[394] _Pennell_ v. _Cummings_, 75 Me.

[395] _Fletcher_ v. _Fletcher_, 1 E. & E. 420; _Anderson_ v. _Burrows_, 4 C. & P. 210.

[396] _Hall_ v. _Semple_, 3 F. & F. 337.

[397] _Scott_ v. _Wakem_, 3 F. & F. 333.

[398] R. S. O. cap. 220, secs. 8, 9; 16 & 17 Vict. cap. 96, secs. 4 & 5; (Imp. Stat.).

[399] _Reg._ v. _West_, 2 C. & K. 784.

[400] _R._ v. _West_, 2 C. & K. 784; _Mitchell_ v. _Connor_, 78 Ky. 204; Russell on Crimes, vol. i, pp. 670, 740; _State_ v. _Dickinson_, 41 Wis. 299.

[401] Imp. Stat. 24 & 25 Vict. cap. 100, secs. 58, 59; Can. Stat. 32 & 33 Vict. cap. 20, secs. 59, 60.

[402] _State_ v. _Slagle_, 83 N. C. 630; _State_ v. _Fitzgerald_, 49 Ia. 260.

[403] _State_ v. _Gedicke_, 43 N. J. L. 86; _Reg._ v. _Fraser_, 9 Cox C. C. 228; _Reg._ v. _Hannah_, 13 Cox, C. C. 54.

[404] _Bradford_ v. _People_, 20 Hun. (N. Y.) 309.

[405] _Rex._ v. _Burnett_, 4 M. & S. 272; _Rex._ v. _Sutton_, 4 Burr. 2116; _Rex._ v. _Vantandillo_, 4 M. & S. 73.

[406] 3 & 4 Vict. cap. 29, sec. 8; 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 84, sec. 32.

[407] 16 Vict. cap. 170, sec. 1.

[408] _Carson_ v. _State_, Ala. Sup. Ct. Dec. 1881; 25 A. L. J. 366; _State_ v. _Kansas_, 29 Kans. 384; and see post Druggists.

[409] R. S. Ont. cap. 142, sec. 34; _Reg._ v. _Coll. of P. & S._, 44 Ont. Q. B. 146.

[410] _Boynton_ v. _Somersworth_, 58 N. H. 321.

[411] _Hitchcock_ v. _Burgett_, 38 Mich. 501.

[412] 32 Hy. VIII., cap. 42.

[413] 2 & 3 Wm. IV., cap. 75.

[414] 32 & 33 Vict., cap. 29, sec. 100.

[415] 1 Jac. I., cap. 12.

[416] 1 Russ. on Crimes, 465.

[417] 3 Inst. 110; 12 Co. 113 a.

[418] 2 East P. C. 652.

[419] _Williams_ v. _Williams_, L. R., 20 Ch. D. 659; _Reg._ v. _Sharpe_, Dea. and Bell, C. C. 160.

[420] Am. Law T., July, 1871.

[421] _Guthrie_ v. _Weaver_, 1 Mo. App. 136; 4 Brady, 502; _Wynkoop_ v. _Wynkoop_, 6 Wright, 293.

[422] _Bogert_ v. _Indianapolis_, 13 Ind. 138.

[423] Willcock, cap. 10.

[424] 2 East P. Cr. 652; _R._ v. _Gilles_, Russ. & Ry. 366, n.; _R._ v. _Lynn_, 2 T. R. 733; _Reg._ v. _Sharpe_, 1 D. & B. 160; _Reg._ v. _Price_, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. 247.

[425] _Tate_ v. _State_, 6 Black. (Ind.) 111; _Com._ v. _Loring_, 8 Pick. (Mass.) 370; _Com._ v. _Marshall_, 11 Pick. 350; _Com._ v. _Cooley_, 10 Pick. 37.

[426] 2 R. S. 688, sec. 13.

[427] 23 Albany L. J. 421.

[428] R. S. O. cap. 143.

[429] _Tate_ v. _State_, 6 Black. 111.

[430] 2 Com. 429.

[431] _Meagher_ v. _Driscoll_, 99 Mass. 281; _Barnstable_ v. _Thatcher_, 3 Metc. 243; _Bracegirdle_ v. _Orford_, 2 M. & S. 77; _Brewer_ v. _Dero_, 11 M. & W. 625.

[432] _Granger’s Ins. Co._ v. _Brown_, 57 Miss. 308.

[433] 32 Henry VIII. cap. 42.

[434] R. S. O. cap. 144.

[435] _Simonds_ v. _Henry_, 39 Me. 153.

[436] Glenn’s Laws, p. 251.

[437] McClelland’s Civil Malpractice, p. 19.

[438] _Eakin_ v. _Brown_, 1 E. D. Smith, 36.

[439] _Clarke_ v. _Kerwin_, 4 E. D. Smith, 21: _Parker_ v. _Adams_, 12 Metc. 417.

[440] _Keily_ v. _Cotton_, 26 Alb. L. J. 483.

[441] _Boyle_ v. _Winslow_, 5 Phil. (Pa.) 136.

[442] Russell on Crimes, vol. I. p. 720.

[443] Taswell-Langmead, English Constit. History, p. 41.

[444] _Street_ v. _Blackburn_, 1 H. Bl. 159; _Wilson_ v. _Brett_, 11 M. & W. 113.

[445] _Hancke_ v. _Hooper_, 7 C. & P. 81.

[446] Glenn’s Laws, p. 209.

[447] Peake’s N. P. C. 83, 84.

[448] _Piper_ v. _Menifee_, 12 B. Monr. 465.

[449] _Simonds_ v. _Henry_, 39 Me. 155.

[450] _Slater_ v. _Balter_, 2 Wils. 359, 362.

[451] _Lee_ v. _Griffin_, 1 E. B. & S. 272.

[452] _Maxon_ v. _Perrott_, 17 Mich. 332.

[453] _Whitcomb_ v. _Reid_, 31 Miss. 567.

[454] _Gilman_ v. _Andrews_, 28 Vt. 24.

[455] _Allen_ v. _Davis_, 4 DeG. & S. 133.

[456] 4 My. & C. 269.

[457] _Colton_ v. _Thomas_, 2 Brews. 308.

[458] _Morgan_ v. _Schuyler_, 79 N. Y. 490; S. C. 35 Am. Rep. 543.

[459] _State_ v. _Holmes_, 28 La. Ann. 765.

[460] _Mills_ v. _Perkins_, 120 Mass. 41.

[461] _Klock_ v. _Burger_, 50 Md. 575.

[462] _Haniline_ v. _Commonwealth_, 13 Bush. 350.

[463] R. S. O. cap. 145.

[464] Code of Med. Pol. 332, 333.

[465] 55 Geo. III., cap. 194, sec, 5.

[466] 13 B. Monr. 219.

[467] _Jones_ v. _George_, 13 Rep. 738; Tex. Sup. Ct. (1882).

[468] Chitty on Contracts, p. 393.

[469] _Howe_ v. _Young_, 16 Ind. 312; 2 Hilliard on Torts, p. 297, sec. A.

[470] _Brown_ v. _Marshall_, 47 Mich. 576.

[471] _VanBracken_ v. _Fondar_, 12 John. 468; _Jones_ v. _Murray_, 3 Monr. 85; _Marshall_ v. _Peck_, 1 Dana. 609.

[472] Ordronaux, secs. 183–184.

[473] 2 Selden, 397, (N. Y.)

[474] 2 R. S. sec. 662, 319.

[475] 2 Car. & Kir. 368.

[476] _Hansford_ v. _Payne_, 11 Bush. 380.

[477] _Norton_ v. _Sewall_, 106 Mass. 143.

[478] _Ibid._

[479] _George_ v. _Skivington_, L. R. 5 Exch. 1.

[480] _Davidson_ v. _Nicholls_, 11 Allen, 514.

[481] _R._ v. _Noakes_, 4 F. & F. 920.

[482] 1 Lewin C. C. 169.

[483] 4 F. & F. 525.

[484] _Wohlfarht_ v. _Beckert_, 27 Hun, 74: 92 N.Y. 490.

[485] R. S. O., c. 145, sec. 27.

[486] Sections, 28–31.

[487] _Ray_ v. _Burbank_, 6 Ga. 505.

[488] 56 Geo. III. cap. 58, sec. 3; 31 & 32 Vict. cap. 121, sec. 24; 23 & 24 Vict. cap. 84, sec. 30.

[489] _Hoard_ v. _Peck_, 56 Barb. 202.

[490] _Common._ v. _Ramsdell_, 130 Mass. 68.

[491] _State_ v. _Laffer_, 38 Iowa, 422; _Common._ v. _Ramsdell_, supra; _Common._ v. _Hallett_, 103 Mass. 452; _Common._ v. _Butterrick_, 6 Cush. 247.

[492] _Nixon_ v. _State_, 76 Ind. 524; _State_ v. _Wray_, 72 N. C. 253; _Woods_ v. _State_, 36 Ark. 36; S. c. 38 Am. Rep. 22.

[493] _State_ v. _Knowles_, 57 Iowa, 669.

[494] _Boone_ v. _State_, 10 Tex. Ct. App. 418.

[495] See Glenn’s Laws, cap. viii.

[496] _Jauncey_ v. _Knowles_, 29 L. J. Cha. 95.

[497] _Mackenna_ v. _Parkes_, 36 L. J. Cha. 366.

[498] _Turner_ v. _Reynall_, 14 C. B. N. S. 328. See, also, _Reg._ v. _Tefft_, 45 Ont. Q. B. 144.

[499] _Anon._, cited 2 K. & J. 446.

[500] _Farr_ v. _Pearce_, 3 Mad. 74; _Austen_ v. _Boys_, 24 Beav. 598; 2 DeG. & J. 626.

[501] _McIntyre_ v. _Belcher_, 10 Jur. N. S. 239.

[502] _Christie_ v. _Glark_, 16 (Ont.) C. P. 544; 27 Q. B. 21.

[503] _May_ v. _Thomson_, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 718.

[504] _Dingnan_ v. _Walker_, 33 L. T. 256.

[505] _Davis_ v. _Mason_, 5 T. R. 118; _Carnes_ v. _Nesbitt_, 7 H. & N. 778; _Sainter_ v. _Ferguson_ 7 C. B. 716; _Hastings_ v. _Whitley_, 2 Ex. 611; _Haynard_ v. _Young_, 2 Chit. 407; _McClurg’s Appeal_, 58 P. St. 51; Parsons on Contracts, vol. ii. p. 748.

[506] _Mallan_ v. _May_, 11 M. & W. 653.

[507] _Horner_ v. _Graves_, 7 Bing. 735.

[508] _Mallan_ v. _May_, supra. Generally on this subject, see Glenn’s Laws, cap. viii.

[509] Glenn’s Laws, cap. viii.

[510] _Nickson_ v. _Brohan_, 10 Mod. 109.

[511] _Hancke_ v. _Hooper_, 7 C. & P. 81.

[512] _R._ v. _Bennett_, 29 L. J.; M. C. 27; _R._ v. _Tessymond_, 1 Lewin C. C. 169.

[513] _Wise_ v. _Wilson_, 1 C. & K. 662.

[514] _Abernethy_ v. _Hutchinson_, 3 L. J, 209; _Nicols_ v. _Pitman_, L. R. 26 Ch. D. 374.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

Original printed spelling and grammar are retained, with a few exceptions noted below. The corrections suggested in the CORRIGENDA have been applied. Small caps are changed to all capital letters. Italics _look like this_. Original printed page numbers look like this: “|81|”. Footnotes were changed to endnotes, and renumbered 1–514. One common printer’s error has been corrected silently; fairly often a short word such as “a” was printed twice on successive lines. Thus, for example, a sentence on page 99 originally read “And a a very recent writer says . . . .”

In the index, ditto marks and white space were used in combination to indicate words repeated from line to line. In this edition, em dashes are used instead. Thus the line beginning “Provision made for study of, in England”, was printed with two ditto marks and white space sufficient to indicate the first five words repeated; herein rendered “— — — — — in Canada”.

Page v. “Practioners” changed to “Practitioners”.

Page viii. “Connnecticut” to “Connecticut”.

Page 12. “distingushed” to “distinguished”.

Page 26. “carlessness” to “carelessness”.

Page 36. “chairvoyant” to “clairvoyant”.

Page 58. The quotation beginning in the last paragraph has no closing mark.

Page 74. Closing quotation mark added after “for a misfeasance”.

Page 66. “exibibit” to “exhibit”.

Page 80. “probablity” to “probability”.

Page 84. “adminster” to “administer”.

Page 101. The quotation beginning ‘Again, “where books are thus offered’ has no closing quotation mark.

Page 104 note. Unmatched left curly bracket removed from “1 Houston Cr. Cas. (Del. 371”.

Page 106. “Uuited” to “United”. Also, “or there probable effect” is retained because it is in a quotation.

Page 115. Closing double quotation mark added after ‘are wholly inadmissible as evidence.’

Page 121. This partial sentence: ‘gives the following, “In a case of alleged child murder a medical witness, being asked for a plain opinion of the cause of death, said, that it was owing to “atelectasis and a general engorgement of the pulmonary tissue.”’ was changed to ‘gives the following, “In a case of alleged child murder a medical witness, being asked for a plain opinion of the cause of death, said, that it was owing to ‘atelectasis and a general engorgement of the pulmonary tissue’.”’

Page 126. Closing quotation mark was added to the end of the paragraph containing the following opening mark: ‘judges replied, “We think’.

Page 128. “Massachussetts” to “Massachusetts”.

Page 130. “physican” to “physician”.

Page 134 note. “(N. S.) 580)” retained despite evident error.

Page 155. Full stop removed from “chiefly murderers.;”.

Page 172. “particnlar” to “particular”.

Page 177. Closing quotation mark added to the end of the paragraph containing the following opening mark: ‘Court refused it saying, “Purchasers have to trust’.

Page 181. “manslaugher” to “manslaughter”.

Page 184 note. The rightmost right parenthesis was removed from “_Clay_ v. _Roberts_, 9 Jur. (N. S.) 580)”.

Page 191 note. “_Christie_ v. _Glark_” is retained; but there is no mention of this case in the TABLE OF CASES CITED beginning on page vii.

Page 209, Index, Heading “Parent and Child”. “Liablility” to “Liability”.

End of Project Gutenberg's The Law and Medical Men, by Robert Vashon Rogers