New Orleans Republican., 1873-06-22
COURT RECORD.
SATURDAY, JUNE q. 1873.
Superior District Courr.

chant of the city, has paid his taxes and
license, that his place Of business is corner
of Decatur and St. Peter streets, that he is
interfered with by the Chief OF Police with
the sanction of the city authorities, and
prays for an I'M JUNCTION.
Semmes & Mott VS.. Antoine Dubuciet and
Charles Clinton. Petition for mandamus
Petitioners allege that they are the holders
of twelve warrants of $1,000 each. issued to
their order, under act OF March IL, 1873,
and numbered from 627 to 63S: that they
presented them June 20, 1873, to the State
Treasurer, and payment was refused; that
the State Auditor has $685. IA belonging
to the general fund. Prayer for mandamus
commanding the Auditor to pay the money
to the Treasurer, and commanding the
Treasurer to pay the warrants. Defendants
ordered 20 show cause June -. 1913.
FirstlDistrict Court.
State VS.. Schonhausen and Dutfy.-FOr.
gerry. etc. Verdict. not guilty.
Third District Court.
James Trudeau VS.. James s. Clark.-The
plaintiff herein claims from the defendant,
James s. Clark, the sum of $l00 for pro-
him or to his family. On the first of June,
1870, the defendant filed before the Second
Justice of the Peace a general denial in
answer to plaintiffs demands, but. subse-
quently, that is, on January Z, 1874, said
defendant fled before this court supple
mental answer, in which he AYERS that lat
the time the services alleged to have been
performed by plaintiff, he (plalntlf1, had
not made the affidavit before justice Of the
peace, nor had the said affidavit been re-
corded, all of which is required by law"
On the trial Of the case before the lower
court, Judgment was rendered in favor of
! plaintiff for the amount claimed, and from
that Judgment the defendant has appealed.
From the inspection of the record in this
case, it appears that said case was tried by
my predecessor in Office, and that judg-
ment was rendered on the thirteenth of
February, 1871, not only reversing the
| Judgment of the lower court, but decreeing
| in favor of the defendant and against the
plaintiff. On new trial being granted, i
am now called upon as the judge OF this
court to pass upon the respective rights OF
| the parties to this controversy. It is ad-
mitted by counsel, both for plaintiff and de-
fendant, that Dr.. Trudeau, the plaintiff
! herein, is a regularly licensed physician,
having practiced medicine in this State for
more than ten years before the passage OF
the act of 1870, relative to physicians; that
| his professional services were rendered to
| the defendant bereil some time before the
passage of the said act, and that the value
| of his services for the amount sued upon
has been proved. The only main question,
therefore, which remains to be inquired
| into by this court is: whether the Dr.
| James Trudeau, the plaintiff herein, has
any right of action against the defendant
! James Clark, to recover from the latter his
| honoluiyes for professional services per
| formed previous to his making the affidavit
| required by the .'act relative TO physicians"
| of his having diploma from regularly
| Incorporated medical institution in America
| or Europe. by the section 2677 OF said
act, approved March IA, 1870, and embodied
| in the book known under tho title Of Re-
vised Laws of Louisiana, it is provided that
no person shall be allowed to practice medi-
cine in the State of Louisiana without first
| making affidavit befOrS duly qualified JUS
tice of the peace in the parish wherein he
| resides, of having received the degree of
doctor of medicine from regularly incor-
porated medical institution in America or
Europe, and designating its name and TO-
cality." "By section 2G7S the Justice of the
peace before whom the affidavit is made is
required to furnish the person making it
certificate OF the fact, and also to transmit
| a copy of the affidavit to the parish re-
corder, who shall record the same in a book
to be kept for that purpose Section 2679
declares that any practitioner failing to COM
ply with the requirement OF section 2677,
above quoted, shall not be permitted to
| services by legal process, and moreover,
| shall pay fine of &20 for each and every
violation thereof According to section
| 26SI the provisions of the act relative to
physicians shall not apply to persons who
VINO have been practiclng medicine tor the
space Of ten years in this State without
| diplomas, ror to female practitioners OF mid
wfery as SUCH By an attentive perusal
both of TIE act of 1861, relative to physi-
nd nf IA 19
| subject, of the fourteenth OF March, 1870.
| it will be perceived that this latter is but
| the re-enactment, rerb0tin,, OF the former.
Now. in order to determine whether or
not the plaintiff herein has right OF action
against tho defendant, two propositions
mus. at first be inquired into: First-Does
said plaintiff, James Trudeau. belong to
that class OF practitioners embraced within
| the exception contained III the section above
| quoted, 2GSl! Second-Does the &C: rela-
| tive to physicians. approved March IA,
| 1870, repeal the act Of 1861 on the same sub
| ject matter!
l. 1t is contended. on the part Of the de-
| fendant, that no practitioner can avail him
| self OF the exception contained in section
| 1851, but those physicians, or rather sol
disant physicians, who, without diplomas,
and however they be, have been practicing
| medicine for the space Of ten years in this
q,
! ploma from medical college OF faculty,
| and having been practicing in this State
| for fifteen or twenty years, however learned,
| however skilltul he be, can not claim the
| benefit of that exception. and, therefore,
| has no standing in justice to recover his
| honOraires; or if he has not, in compliance
| with section 2677, above quoted, made, be-
fore practicing medicine. an affidavit OF his
| having received the degree Of doctor Of
medicine from a regularly incorporated
! medical institution of America or Europe.
This proposition, with due Difference to
| the learned counsel for the defendant, is a
| proposition that does not seem to be war
| ranted either by law or by reason. and
which. therefore. can not assent to.
From an examination Of the act of March
| II, 1870, relative to physicians, the true in
| ntion of the Legislature may be easily
| ascertained. In framing that act the law
! maker had two objects in view. two com.
| mendable objects, indeed: To protect the
honor and reputation OF the medical body
! in this State against the ignorance of the
| charlatans, who daily insult over and de-
base the science by falsely holding out
| themselves to the world as doctors of
medicine, and also to protect the society
against the impositiOns of those charlatans
whose criminal conduct as practitioners has
already caused SO many tears to be shed in
SO many families. The section 16Sl must be
construed in sense leading to reasonable
conclusion rather than an unre asonable one.
If, consequently, that section 26sl dispenses
from the formalities required by section
2677 the persons who have been practicing
medicine for the space of ten years in this
State without diplomas, on the presumption
arising from their practicing during that
long period that they are sufficiently learned
and qualified q tOrttOri does that section
give the same advantage, the same privilege
to the physicians who have been practicing
l., thia State Like the nlaintitf