The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-03-20
KELLOGG CAN'T PRACTICE
The Suprems Court Refuses Him
an Order for the Say OF
Judgment
Ho May Apply Again II Arrested
for Predicting Without
a License.
Dsnurrsrs Sustained TO some OF tho Cad
well ChRrRes-LieuL Ahern Lawyer
Now-MAndRm Pat on

By tho decision OF the suprsms court
yests day. d.. Edwin s. Kellogg cannot
sontinuo 30 practice medicine while that
body IL oonsiisrina his appeal from she
action OF the medical board aud TIE dis
triet court in TevokinR his license. The
supreme court refuses him that % mission
bp overriding his motion for an order hK-
ing the amount aud conditions OF bond
which was 20 operate Es a stay Of the iudR-
ment OF the district court. Ia effect the
decision goes further and suggests that the
matter Of obtaining a stay Of Judgment can
best be brought mp through the medical
board instituting prosecution against the
Doctor for continuing 10 practice without a
license. 10 also says the matter Of grant
ing suoh a stay is one Of discretion with the
district court and there is nothing 10 show
that this discretion has besn abused. The
application for the order was argued al the
morning session OF the court by Col. O. h.
Nolan. representing the state. ami En-.
Judge Henry n. Blake. for the medical
board; aud by T. J. Walsh for the doctor.
The court considered the matter during the
recess, and In the afternoon Chief justice
PembsrtOn read the decision. II IL as fol-
lows
I'm this case appellant moves this court
for an order fixing the amount ani oondi-
lions of bond 70 be executed by appellant
and suTsties ia behalf OF a stay Of proceed
inRs on, and superosding the ope alton Of
the judgment Of the trial court and asking
that on the oKscution, approval and fling
of such bond, this court makes such an
order staying the operation Of the iudR-
menL pending review on appeal.
by the judgment of the trial court ap-
rellanfs license 20 practice medicine as
physician aud su'Rson in this state IL re-
Voked and Rnnullsd. with judgment for
costs OF prosecution. Therefore. By the
effect or such Judgment. appellant stands
In ths attitude Of one seeking TO practice
medicine In this state, but without license
so to do; and the act Of praotiong medicine
without liosnss Ii by statute made q orim-
inal ofense punishable By fine or i'm
prisonmsnt. OF both.
The effect sought By an order to stay
proceedings on the Judgment below. in so
far as ale same regards enToToement of
costs. ia oonaummRted By the cost bond
upon an appeal; bus the further effect
sought By such order Is 10 license or permit
appellant 10 oOntinuS the practice OF medi-
cine Notwithstanding the revocation of his
license until review and final deter nina
tion of the appeal by this court Whethsf
such an order staying proceedings on the
Judgment. as sought, would stay the opera
zion of the statute agEinst one prsoticiRR
medicine without license, aud shield him
from tho prosecution and penalty therefor,
especially II the Judgment rsvoking bis
license be affirmed, IL question Of grave
Importance. which would arise directly for
determination In the event Of such prose-
oution. and the which in this collateral
presentation, We do not feel az liberty TO
Determine. as within the purview Of this
motion.
ASIDE from that view, IL appears appli-
cation was made 20 the trial court 10 stay
proceedings in relation 90 abe Judgment.
pending the appeal, and such stay was re-
fused. Considering that a stay of such a
Judgment would be matter of discretion
In the trial court, there IL nothing shown in
this proceeding at this time which would
lead this court 10 order the contrary, on she
q ound that such discretion had been
abused
An order will therefore be entered over
railing the motion"