- Email: [email protected]
THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF PLUMBERS.
257 who fined the late Mr. Kingsley costs under Section 40 of the Medical Act of 1858 for 11 wilfully and falsely pretending to be and taking and using the name and title of physician." The application for the decision of the Queen’s Bench Justices was argued at length occupying the whole of the morning sitting of the Court. After lunch the following judgments were delivered :-
justices
of
Cambridge
Hunter, L.S.A., 5and 3 guineas
Mr. Justice LAWRAXCK said that the real question the court was asked *±o decide was whether a person having the certificate of the Society of Apothecaries, by virtue of which he is entitled to work both at .medicine and surgery as well as an apothecary, is entitled to describe ihimself as a physician or whether in so doing he contravenes ’.Section 40 of the Medical Act, 1858. In his 10r(lship’s judgment such a person was not entitled to describe himself as a physician and if he ollid so falsely and wilfully the conviction was Until 1886 ’the certificate granted by the Society of Apotliecaries gave a as to an In that year qualification practise apothecary only. it was determined that for the future no one should be Mcensed to practise in any one of the three branches into which the profession is divided unless he had passed qualifying - examinations in all. The appellant, whose diploma dated from later than 1886, called himself a "physician." How was that expression ’,lse,1? Was it a mere description of himself as a doctor in the - colloquial sense or was it used to imply that he held a medical degree of a university or some qualification entitling him to act as a physician ? To any ordinary mind the latter was what the word physician would Emply. His lordship came to the conclusion that although there had %!een misdescription it was not wilfully false and that the conviction must therefore be quashed, but without costs, as the respondent had succeeded upon the main point. Mr. Justice CHAXKEI.L said that upon the whole he was of the eame opinion. He thought, though he was not without ’doubt, that
,justifiable.
the appellant had falsely described himself as a physician. Whether that was so or not was the main question upon which the opinion of the Court was desired, for counsel, though nominally appearing for the appellant and respondent, had stated that they were really unstructed by the General Medical Council and the Apothecaries’ Society who wanted the point settled. The question was whether it is a true description for a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries to describe himself as a physician. That depended upon the sense in which the word "physician" was used in Section 40 of the Medical Act, 1858. If in that section the word meant merely a person duly qualified to practise in physic then the appellant was a physician, because, though it was not so at one time, a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries now becomes entitled to practise medicine and surgery. But before the Act of 1858 physician was commonly used as applying to persons in the highest grade of medical practitioners and his lordship thought it was so used in the Act. There was confirmation of that interpretation in several places in the Act. In that sense a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries was not, in his opinion, a physician. His lordship then expressed his concurrence with Mr. Justice Lawrance in holding that the appellant had not wilfully misdescribed his qualification and that the conviction must therefore be quashed, though under the circumstances without costs.
THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF
PLUMBERS. THE annual dinner of the Plumbers’ Company "to meet the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of the City of London"was beld at Salters’ Hall on Wednesday, Jan. 18th, under the presidency of the Master of the Company (Alderman Richard Hind). Amongst the large number of guests present were the Lord Mayors of Leeds, Sheffield, and Belfast, and Mayors of other important provincial towns and many well-known medical officers of health and others inIn responding to the toast of terested in sanitation. "The Houses of Parliament"Mr. T. W. Russell, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, referred to the Plumbers Registration Bill and said that his department never had two opinions with regard to that Bill as the registration and examination of plumbers seemed to be so necessary and useful. His department had not changed its mind though it could not be said that the Bill was ideally drawn. The Bill had been under discussion for several years past and it had passed the second reading three or four times, but it seemed to him that many who pretended to be interested in the movement only came forward to support it when it reached the report stage. In conclusion, he expressed a sincere hope that the next time the Bill was introduced it would pass the House of Commons. The toast of "The Worshipful Company of Plumbers " was acknowledged by the Master who expressed a hope that the Houses of Parliament would soon confer upon the Plumbers’ Company the authority which it wished to possess in the interests of the public health. It may not on this occasion be out of place to remind our readers that THE LANCET owes a debt of gratitude to the Worshipful Company of Plumbers. Some three or four years ago we appointed Special Commissioners to in-
vestigate
the difficult
subject
of the Relative
Efficiency
and Cost of Plumbers’ Work." It occurred to us that if when our work was finished we could be so fortunate as to obtain an authoritative criticism, or at any rate a statement of opinion thereon, from such a high and competent authority as the Company of Plumbers, where the results of our Commissioners’ labours were found to be of value that value would be enhanced by the approval of the Company ; where they were considered to be faulty our readers would have the benefit of the Company’s criticism. In answer to our application to the Company we received a courteous and kind reply acceding to our request, one stipulation only being made, and that a highly proper one-namely, that the "Report of of the Special Committee appointed by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers to offer criticism and suggestions upon the report of an inquiry undertaken by THE LANCET into the subject of theRelative Efficiency and Cost of Plumbers’ Work" should appear as the work of a Special Committee appointed by the Company for the purpose and not as the work of the Company. The reason for this request was that the Company does not in its corporate capacity take any part in what may be regarded as "trade matters," but directs its efforts entirely to promoting the sound technical instruction of plumbers combined with the necessary arrangements for establishing an adequate system of registration and control over those men who are registered as qualified plumbers. The Special Committee appointed by the Company went very thoroughly into the vast amount of detail which was in our report and must have devoted a very great deal of time and labour to the work. Their report was duly sent to us and published with that of our Special Commission in THE LANCET of July 4th, 1896. The criticisms of the Special Committee were on the whole of a favourable nature and to their conclusions and findings of fact they added some valuable observations and suggestions. We are glad to take this opportunity of tendering to the Worshipful Company of Plumbers in general and to the Special Committee in particular our cordial thanks for their cooperation-a cooperation which is probably unique, for never before surely have a City Company and a medical journal joined hands in the cause of sanitary science. Several of the City Companies are becoming very useful The Plumbers’ allies in the cause of public health. Company, although in their corporate capacity they do not take any part in what may be regarded as trade matters, yet exercise great influence over that branch of commerce which is represented by plumbing, and do all they can to promote the sound technical instruction of plumbers and by some useful form of control such as registration to protect the public from the too common dangers The Grocers’ Company of defective plumbing work. afford another instance in the splendid support which they give by their scholarships to scientific research, and other City Companies by their liberal donations to hospital funds and hospitals evince their interest, if not in public health, in the health of the public. Of the fact that the City of London itself recognises the work of, and wishes to honour, those whose life duty it is to guard the health of the public a remarkable illustration was afforded when in May last the Lord Mayor of London invited representative members of the medical profession to dine with him at the Mansion House-the City thus publicly honouring Medicine. We have no hesitation in saying that that honour was appreciated by the medical profession throughout the country.
contained
MEDICAL REFEREES UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT. THE Secretary of State for the Home Department has made the following further appointments of medical referees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1897 :Circuit No. Circuit No. Horace Allan Circuit No.
ENGLAND. 22.-Dr. Thomas W. Thursfield, Leamington. 28.-Mr. Alfred Owen Davies, Machynlleth, and Mr.
Debenham, Presteign. 33.-Dr. H. Muir Evans, Lowestoft,
Graham, resigned.
in lieu of Mr. C. H.
Circuit No. .—Mr. Robert Bruce, Milford-on-Selt. IRELAND. Count,1j Louth.-Dr. Thomas Joseph Moore, Ardee. Londonderry.-Dr. Benjamin Lane, Limavady, in lieu of Mr. D. J.
Browne, resigned.
justices
of
Cambridge
Hunter, L.S.A., 5and 3 guineas
Mr. Justice LAWRAXCK said that the real question the court was asked *±o decide was whether a person having the certificate of the Society of Apothecaries, by virtue of which he is entitled to work both at .medicine and surgery as well as an apothecary, is entitled to describe ihimself as a physician or whether in so doing he contravenes ’.Section 40 of the Medical Act, 1858. In his 10r(lship’s judgment such a person was not entitled to describe himself as a physician and if he ollid so falsely and wilfully the conviction was Until 1886 ’the certificate granted by the Society of Apotliecaries gave a as to an In that year qualification practise apothecary only. it was determined that for the future no one should be Mcensed to practise in any one of the three branches into which the profession is divided unless he had passed qualifying - examinations in all. The appellant, whose diploma dated from later than 1886, called himself a "physician." How was that expression ’,lse,1? Was it a mere description of himself as a doctor in the - colloquial sense or was it used to imply that he held a medical degree of a university or some qualification entitling him to act as a physician ? To any ordinary mind the latter was what the word physician would Emply. His lordship came to the conclusion that although there had %!een misdescription it was not wilfully false and that the conviction must therefore be quashed, but without costs, as the respondent had succeeded upon the main point. Mr. Justice CHAXKEI.L said that upon the whole he was of the eame opinion. He thought, though he was not without ’doubt, that
,justifiable.
the appellant had falsely described himself as a physician. Whether that was so or not was the main question upon which the opinion of the Court was desired, for counsel, though nominally appearing for the appellant and respondent, had stated that they were really unstructed by the General Medical Council and the Apothecaries’ Society who wanted the point settled. The question was whether it is a true description for a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries to describe himself as a physician. That depended upon the sense in which the word "physician" was used in Section 40 of the Medical Act, 1858. If in that section the word meant merely a person duly qualified to practise in physic then the appellant was a physician, because, though it was not so at one time, a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries now becomes entitled to practise medicine and surgery. But before the Act of 1858 physician was commonly used as applying to persons in the highest grade of medical practitioners and his lordship thought it was so used in the Act. There was confirmation of that interpretation in several places in the Act. In that sense a Licentiate of the Society of Apothecaries was not, in his opinion, a physician. His lordship then expressed his concurrence with Mr. Justice Lawrance in holding that the appellant had not wilfully misdescribed his qualification and that the conviction must therefore be quashed, though under the circumstances without costs.
THE WORSHIPFUL COMPANY OF
PLUMBERS. THE annual dinner of the Plumbers’ Company "to meet the Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of the City of London"was beld at Salters’ Hall on Wednesday, Jan. 18th, under the presidency of the Master of the Company (Alderman Richard Hind). Amongst the large number of guests present were the Lord Mayors of Leeds, Sheffield, and Belfast, and Mayors of other important provincial towns and many well-known medical officers of health and others inIn responding to the toast of terested in sanitation. "The Houses of Parliament"Mr. T. W. Russell, M.P., Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, referred to the Plumbers Registration Bill and said that his department never had two opinions with regard to that Bill as the registration and examination of plumbers seemed to be so necessary and useful. His department had not changed its mind though it could not be said that the Bill was ideally drawn. The Bill had been under discussion for several years past and it had passed the second reading three or four times, but it seemed to him that many who pretended to be interested in the movement only came forward to support it when it reached the report stage. In conclusion, he expressed a sincere hope that the next time the Bill was introduced it would pass the House of Commons. The toast of "The Worshipful Company of Plumbers " was acknowledged by the Master who expressed a hope that the Houses of Parliament would soon confer upon the Plumbers’ Company the authority which it wished to possess in the interests of the public health. It may not on this occasion be out of place to remind our readers that THE LANCET owes a debt of gratitude to the Worshipful Company of Plumbers. Some three or four years ago we appointed Special Commissioners to in-
vestigate
the difficult
subject
of the Relative
Efficiency
and Cost of Plumbers’ Work." It occurred to us that if when our work was finished we could be so fortunate as to obtain an authoritative criticism, or at any rate a statement of opinion thereon, from such a high and competent authority as the Company of Plumbers, where the results of our Commissioners’ labours were found to be of value that value would be enhanced by the approval of the Company ; where they were considered to be faulty our readers would have the benefit of the Company’s criticism. In answer to our application to the Company we received a courteous and kind reply acceding to our request, one stipulation only being made, and that a highly proper one-namely, that the "Report of of the Special Committee appointed by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers to offer criticism and suggestions upon the report of an inquiry undertaken by THE LANCET into the subject of theRelative Efficiency and Cost of Plumbers’ Work" should appear as the work of a Special Committee appointed by the Company for the purpose and not as the work of the Company. The reason for this request was that the Company does not in its corporate capacity take any part in what may be regarded as "trade matters," but directs its efforts entirely to promoting the sound technical instruction of plumbers combined with the necessary arrangements for establishing an adequate system of registration and control over those men who are registered as qualified plumbers. The Special Committee appointed by the Company went very thoroughly into the vast amount of detail which was in our report and must have devoted a very great deal of time and labour to the work. Their report was duly sent to us and published with that of our Special Commission in THE LANCET of July 4th, 1896. The criticisms of the Special Committee were on the whole of a favourable nature and to their conclusions and findings of fact they added some valuable observations and suggestions. We are glad to take this opportunity of tendering to the Worshipful Company of Plumbers in general and to the Special Committee in particular our cordial thanks for their cooperation-a cooperation which is probably unique, for never before surely have a City Company and a medical journal joined hands in the cause of sanitary science. Several of the City Companies are becoming very useful The Plumbers’ allies in the cause of public health. Company, although in their corporate capacity they do not take any part in what may be regarded as trade matters, yet exercise great influence over that branch of commerce which is represented by plumbing, and do all they can to promote the sound technical instruction of plumbers and by some useful form of control such as registration to protect the public from the too common dangers The Grocers’ Company of defective plumbing work. afford another instance in the splendid support which they give by their scholarships to scientific research, and other City Companies by their liberal donations to hospital funds and hospitals evince their interest, if not in public health, in the health of the public. Of the fact that the City of London itself recognises the work of, and wishes to honour, those whose life duty it is to guard the health of the public a remarkable illustration was afforded when in May last the Lord Mayor of London invited representative members of the medical profession to dine with him at the Mansion House-the City thus publicly honouring Medicine. We have no hesitation in saying that that honour was appreciated by the medical profession throughout the country.
contained
MEDICAL REFEREES UNDER THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT. THE Secretary of State for the Home Department has made the following further appointments of medical referees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1897 :Circuit No. Circuit No. Horace Allan Circuit No.
ENGLAND. 22.-Dr. Thomas W. Thursfield, Leamington. 28.-Mr. Alfred Owen Davies, Machynlleth, and Mr.
Debenham, Presteign. 33.-Dr. H. Muir Evans, Lowestoft,
Graham, resigned.
in lieu of Mr. C. H.
Circuit No. .—Mr. Robert Bruce, Milford-on-Selt. IRELAND. Count,1j Louth.-Dr. Thomas Joseph Moore, Ardee. Londonderry.-Dr. Benjamin Lane, Limavady, in lieu of Mr. D. J.
Browne, resigned.