The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1898-01-22
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
CASE DECIDED.

those VINO are not Sclentists, Dut De-
| lieve In the right OF the individual TO
absolute freedom the practice of his relig-
ious prlnciplos will be Interested In tho
result of Washington case similar TO
those occurring in this city recently when
Scientists were arrested ana hauled into
court on the charge OF practicing msdi-
cine contrary to the laws OF the state.
| On Saturday, Dec. l5 Mrs. Bertha f..
sessford, a Christian Scientist. was be
fore Judge Mills OF Washington on n
charge of practicing medicine without q
license. She had bsen treating . child
who had diphtheria, and the child died.
| The case was dism issed by Judge Mills
because the local statute did not cover the
case. In the opinion which be handed
down he said; "Tbis complaint Is
brought under Section i3 OF the act 1t
provides that latter passage OF this act
any person practicin4 medicine and sur
| gerry or midwifery In the District OF
Columbia. or who shall publicly Profess
to do so. without first having obtained
license and registered the same as herein
prov ided, for violation OF any OF the
provisions Of this act. or any Of the rules
| and regulations made by authority con-
| ferred herein, or whose license or regis
| tration has been cancelled by order OF
said board Of medical supervisors of the
| District of Columbia, shall be deemed
! guilty of misdemeanor and upon con-
viction thereof, shall be punished for
each cffence by fnc OF not less than $50
or more than $500 or by imprisonment in
| the district jail for q period OF not less
| tran 10 or more than 90 days or by such
| fine and imprisonment.
"It IL conceded that this defendant was
not such q licensed physician, and that
| she had no right to practice medicine.
| The contention on behalf of the United
| States Is that this defendant was practic-
| ing medicine without the necessary GER
| tiflcate. The only testimony Is that OF
| DR. Walsh. not controverted, that when
| he called about the time Of the child's
death, tho defendant admitted that she
was in sole charge Of the patient, and
| said that she was Christian Scientist
"This act is in the nature OF penal
| act, and thus .sa quasi criminal mat
| ter. This statute must to construed rs
all others relating to criminal responsi-
bility or liability. 1t must be construed
| In accordance with the plain meaning ot
the language OF the act
Judge Mills then quotes from Bishop
on Statutory Crimes, I'd edition. par. 100
| (e), American Encyclopedia Of Law
| Under Criminal Negligence. md these
| cases; johnson j. in the State ".
Stephenson. 2 Bailey. 1874, 335; Common
wealth VS.. Loring, Picb. $40; u. S. VS..
wrigglosworth, 2 Story. 369; Strong VS.
Stebblns. 5 cow, 2l0; Verona Central
Cheese Factory va Murtagh. 4, Laws IL
| In these we find that "A penal statute
cannot bs extended by implication or
| construction to cases within the mischief,
| IL they are no. at the same time within
| the terms'of the act. fairly and reason.
ably interpreted" and again, "1hs law
delights in the life, liberty and happiness
of the subject, consequently it deems
statutes which deprive him of these, In a
sense, odious. From which, and for
| kindred reasons. statutes which subject
one To a punishment or penalty, or a
summary process calculated to take
away his opportunity Of making full
defence, or in any way deprive him of
his liberty, are to be construed strictly,
and the degrse Of strictness will depend
somewhat op the severity of the punish
ment they innIot.' And elsew here he
says the case must be "a strong one which
would justify court in departing from
the "pla1n meaning" Of words, especially
In penal set. In search of an intention
which tho words them selves dill not suC-
gest. "To determine that a case Is with.
in the intention OF q statute It's language
| must authorize us to say so. Marshal.
| G. D., in the u. S. vs. Wilberger. 3
wheat 76. '95, '96. says: "When the law
imposes a punishment which acts upon
the offender alone, and not ms repara.
tion to the party injured, and when IL Is
entirely within the discretion Of the law
| giver. it will not be presumed that he in
| tended it.should extend further than is
expressed, and humanity would require
that II should be so limited in the con
struction. -
1
slaughter who through wanton or reck-
| less con duct or wiliul misconduct or
neglect, or gross want of skill and atten-
tion, etc.. etc., causes the life or safety of
another to TO endangered.
In conclusion Judge Mills SAYS: 1.-The
court has arrived at this conclusion.
That although there Ia evidence here OF
gross neglect. and such as might he In.
"details under the common law. and
while there may be some offence for which
the laws CT the United States would
make this defendont responsible. In the
| judgment Of the court IL does not come
within the purview OF this statute. be-
cause only those things that are mon.
toned here, and that nre prohibited. are
tho only ones that we have any right to
conclude that Congress bad In mind at
the time Of passing this act Therefore l
think IL Is tho duty Of the court To dis.
miss this case against this defendant ["