The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-07-20
STODDART KNOCKED OUT
d.. LeaYitt Sustained In Ills Refusal to
Grant the Certificate.
Judge Mediation S~ustains the MedI-
cal Board In Its Efforts to Pro-
tect the Medical Profession
Against Pretenders.

Special Correspondence OF the Standard.
BUTTE, July 19.-The attention of the
district court this morning was given up
almost entirely to the citation of Charles
Tatty. Some time ago an injunction was
served upon Tatty by the water board.
This he has disrcgarded. After due ex-
animation, Tatty was fined $40 for con-
tempt OF court, and was remanded to the
custody of the sheriff until the fine was
paid. This Mr.. Tatty did Immediately.
and was released.
A nearing was given the case Of Stod-
dart VS.. Leavitt this afternoon at 2 o'clock.
Lawyer Mcbride appeared as counsel for
. plaintiff and Lawyer Stapleton for
n defense. Counsel Mcbride stated the
case, which was a petition for a writ of
mandamus instructing DIR. Leavitt to
grant the plaintiff a license to practice.
Dr. oddart was sworn and placed upon
h stand and examined by his counsel,
The witness stated his conversation with
Leavitt n identified the diploma which
purported to be from the Royal College of
Physicians and Surgeons at Edinburgh,
Dr. Leayitt objected TO the diploma
identified as not the original, Of
which q copy appeared i'm the complaint.
The coloring, trimming, and other points
were different. The court held that the
complainant could be expected to COPY
only the essential portions of the diploma.
DIR. Stoddart then proceeded to show his
acquaintance with the signers of the
diploma and stated at length the circum-
stances of his application and refusal.
The witness further described how he had
been damaged.
On cross-examinAtion the witness
stated that he cever practiced medicine
Ia A~l"Gsana, nor did he prescribe for any
one in Missoula or Butte. The witness
was b excused. The counsel for the
defense claimed that DIR. Leavitt could not
but he mislead by the copy presented. On
he copy he could readily refuse to grant
q diploma. The diploma ought not to be
brought in evidence.
The plaintiffs counsel urged that DIR.
Leavitt was presented with the original
and denied the application notwithstand-
ing. DIR. Leavitt did not have the copy
nor could he have had it,as il was not then
i'm existence. The objection was conse-
quently absurd.
The court held that the evidence ought
to conform to the allegations of the COM
plant, that the pleadings must conform
to the copy of the complaint.
The plaintiff through counsel Withdrew
the o and amended the complaint
thus. On being further examined DIR.
Stoddart stated that the copy was made
by placing tracing paper over the original
and following the lines of writing. The
witness did not get the diploma in San
Francisco. This was the diploma he had
presented to DIR. Leavitt. The witness
was called upon to translate the diploma
from the Latin. This he did with some
difficulty.
DIR. Leavitt was sworn and examined by
his counsel. DIR. Leavitt thought that the
original handed him was similar to the
copy entered IN complaint and not to the
diploma presented. He thought that the
one presented him had red border RS on.
He knew that leading colleges did not
issue diplomas in gaudy colors and
thought the diploma bogus. The witness
had heard that DIR. Stoddart has been ar
rested for practicing medicine in Mis-
soula. The plaintiffs couns here inter-
posed objection To the introduction of
this evidence. This objection was sus-
tanned.
On cross examination DIR. Leavitt could
not say that the diploma was not the same
as had bee presented him. He could not
say II was not genuine. He thought but
did not know that the three colleges had
not issued the diploma.
In summing up Counse Mcbride cited
q large number of authorities TO show
how q medical examiner ought to pro
ceed to reject q diploma.
On he defense Counsel Stapleton
dwelt at length upon the danger To the
community from quacks. IL the court
were to decide against DIR. Leavitt, a med
ical examiner would he forced to grant a
license to practice To everyone presenting
anything claiming to be n diploma.
The cour in deciding the Ease held that
a medical examiner is TO be sustained In
using his discretion as TO the rejection or
acceptance Of diplomas. In every skilled
profession there are ethics peculiar to the
profession. Every profession must pro-
tect itself against unknown or travelling
pretenders. The petition for q writ OF
mandamus must be refused. The officer
under the law had acted in the best faith,
did not consider the applicant properly
qualified, and in using his best judgment
the medical examiner nat discharged his
duty.
Considerable satisfaction Is felt In med
ical circles over the decision i'm favor of
DIR. Leavitt ms the representative Of the
board of examiners. Credit is
due Lawyer Stapleton for the
careful manner in which he has
real up a case foreign to the usual prac-
tice of the bar. In accordance with this
decision il will be impossible for DIR. Stod-
dart TO practice before the medical board
meets in November, and it Is rather inn
probable that he will then obtain perniis-
sion.
DIR. Stoddart is the physician of the Lie.
big Dispensary and this fact has added
peculiar interest to the ease, N gives The
decision OF the court great value estab-
fishing n precedent i'm the case.