The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-01-12
he USED PRINTERS INK.
A Butte Physician Convicted Of
Praoticlng Medicine With.
out 4 License.
The Supreme Court Says His Cor
tiacate Had Not Boon
Revoked.
The Msdieal hoard Declared the Doctor
Guilty sf Unprofsssional Conduct II
Advertising " Curs.

An opinion was delivered yes terday In the
supreme court Of considerable Interest 70
members 81 the medical profession. II II
known % tho State VI. Carl Schultz. y ply
stefan nt Butte. The doctor was indicted
Sept. IL. 1890, for practioinR without 4
license. A verdict Of guilty was rendered.
During the trial IL appeared that the state
board Of medical examiners issued on OCT.
4. 1889, TO him . certificate to practice.
April, 1880, the board held a meeting and
dsolsred that the doctor had violated his
word Of honor to abstain from former un-
professional conduct, in that he publicly
advertised to cure or treat disease, injury
or deformity, in such manner ~ to deceive
tho public. Tho board also declared his
certificate revoked. The supreme court
says that before these proceedings the
board adopted q resolution to the effect it
was the sense Of the board that advertising
in any newspaper or journal, promising to
cure any particular injury or disease Of the
body Of any kind for any sum Of money, or
other consideration, ia unprofcsstonal CON
duct, and shall be sufficient cause for the
revocation Of any certificate granted. No
notice of any charge of unprOfesRional or
G~iahonorable conduct was ever given to
Schultz by any officer Of the medical board
or otherwise. The court below instructed the
jury that this fact was immaterial, and that
the action Of the board in that matter was
valid and could not be questioned by them.
The court also refused to elbow the defend
ant to prove That he had appealed from the
decision Of the board in revoking his csrti-
fcate, and that the appeal was then pend
ing in the district court Of the proper
county. Tho statute relating to this sub
ject provides that the board may revoke a
certificate for unprofessional, ~dishonorable
or IMMORAL conduct, and that in all cases
of revocation the applicant, il he or she
feels aggrieved, may appeal to the district
court of the county, whore such applicant
may have applied for a certificate. 1t was
ssumed by the court below that the boar d
possessed the power under these clauses of
reyoking the certificate of appellant, without
u notice of any. charge preferred against
him or a hearing thereon. Allthe rulings
conform to this view of the law, which is
clearly erroneous, and subverts the most
precious rights of the citizen. The princi-
pies which govern the disbarment
OF attorneys are analogous.
Ths court quotes a Mississippi
case which says: 1T is q cardinal princi-
pie in the administration of justice that no
man can 10 condemned or Invested of his
rights until he has had the opportunity of
being heard.
We are satisfied that the legislative as
sembly did not intend to clothe the medi-
cal board of the state with the arbitrary
power to revoke the certificate Of a physi-
Clan without a reasonable notice OF the
charge against him and the time and place
80 4tAE A-sa1 In-.1~A A NJ. - 49, n Al.s,
character can be maintained under these
circumstances, and the appellant should
have BEEN allowed to prove that he had APP
peeled from the decision Of the board in
revoking his certificate and that the appeal
was pending in the appropriate tribunal.
The court below should have instructed the
jury that the certificate which had been is
sued to the appellant had not been revoked.
and was in full force. Judgment reversed
with orders to grant q new trial. Opinion
by Chief Justice Blake.
An opinion was also rendered in the case
of John Floyd ct al res vs.. the Boulder F.
and M. Go. This action was commenced
to restrain the defendant from divertinG
the waters of Boulder creek and depriving
the plaintiff of the use thereof in a fume.
A notice of appropriation was introduced
in the trial below. The appellants main
the notice because it did not show by what
means the waters of Boulder creek were
diverted, or the quantity or the purpose of
diversion, or the date of the appropriation.
"We think the respondents should be ra-
CURED to divert all the water which is
available in the Lowland Fork before they
convey the remainder of the quantity to
which they are entitled from Boulder
creek. This action will make the rights of
the parties certain and cure the obscurity
in the notice. 1t is ordered that the judg-
ment be modified in accordance with this
opinion, and that when go modified it be
affirmed The court adjourned until next
Monday.