Case ID: ri_20/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

State vs. Henry S. Taft.
    PROVIDENCE
    JULY 18, 1898.
    Present: Matteson, C. J., Stiness, Tillinghast, Rogers, Douglas, and Boswortli, JJ.
    Practice oí the art of “metaphysical healing,” for reward without registration and license, is not a violation of Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 165; and the question of the constitutionality of the act is not open to a defendant in a complaint thereunder when the evidence shows only the practice of such art,
    Complaint charging the unlawful practice of medicine. Certified from a District Court and heard on constitutional questions.
    
      Charles F. Stearns, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
    
      Henry J. Spooner and Warren R. Perce, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant was adjudged probably guilty by the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, of a violation of cap. 165, Gen. Laws R. I., “of the practice of medicine.” The defendant, who is a believer in metaphysical healing, claims that said chapter, so far as it relates to the acts complained of, is in violation of Art. 1, § 3, Const. R. I.

Although the testimony differs somewhat in character from that in State v. Mylod, ante 632, and State v. Anthony, ante 644, it fails to show that the defendant, in the statutory sense, was guilty of an unlawful practice of medicine. This being so, the constitutional question is not before the court. See opinion, State v. Mylod.