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.

    35/444
    Kelly. Evidence was given in proof of the genuineness of the German diploma, and that it could not be purchased for money. The magistrates dismissed the case, holding that Kelly was justified in assuming the title of Doctor of Medicine, and on appeal their decision was confirmed on the ground that even assuming that Kelly was not a Doctor of Medicine he had not assumed the title wilfully and falsely. In Steele v. Hamilton (a) (decided 21st November 1860), the defendant had called himself Surgeon, Boston, U.S. and Botanic Surgeon, Boston, U.S. The magistrate dismissed the case, and the Court dismissed the appeal, apparently upon the ground that the prosecution had failed to show that Hamilton was not a surgeon. In Andrews v. Styrap (b) (decided 7th May 1872, twelve years after Ellis v. Kelly), the appellant called himself M.D,, and held a diploma of Doctor of Medicine from the University of Philadelphia, U.S.A., which he had purchased without having passed any examination or studied or attended the University. He was not registered. The magistrates convicted, and the Court of Exchequer confirmed the conviction, holding that the appellant knew that his diploma was worthless as an indication of professional skill, and had therefore wilfully and falsely assumed the title. One of the Judges was Baron Bramwell who had taken part in the decision of Ellis v. Kelly on which the appellant rehed, but who now said : The matter does not appear to me now as it appears to have appeared to me then. In Carpenter v. Hamilton (c) (decided 23rd June 1877), the respondent exhibited in his shop window a diploma of Doctor of Medicine of the Metropolitan Medical College of New York and described himself merely as such. It was held by the magistrate that he had committed no offence under the section and the decision was upheld by the Exchequer Division. How, asked Baron Cleasby, is it (a) See post, page 26. (&) See post, page 87.