The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-05-08
DR.. PECK WINS.
Appellate Court Orders Indictment
Against Him Quashed.
He Was Charged With Practlclng Dentistry
Without Having Registered.

Judge Tillinghast in an opinion hand
ed down today in the case OF State VS..
DR.. Horace L. Peck, gives 1t as the
opinion OF the full appellate division
that an indictment against the defend
ant. who is regular physician. duly
registered, which charged him with un-
lawfully practicing dentistry must be
quashed. The opinion holds the broad
view that a doctor may practice dem
tistry without first having caused his
name and place of business TO be regis
tered with the state board of dentistry.
The Indictment charged that the de-
fendant di1 unlawfuly practice dentis-
try i'm Newport on the first day OF Au-
gust. 1898. without first having obtained
a certificate from the board of registra-
tion I'm dentistry. and without first hav-
ing caused his name and place of busi-
ness 10 be registered with said board.
The defendant filed special plea
i'm bar to the Indictment. i'm which he
set up that at the time named he held
A certificate in due form from the state
board OF health. that he was qualihed TO
practice medicine and surgery, by rea-
son OF the possession by him OF dip-
Iona from a reputable and legally char
tered college endorsed by the board, by
virtue of wfrfrh he-was qualified 10
practice surgery in all it's branches up
on all parts of the human body, includ-
ing the teeth. To this plea the attorney
general demurred, citing the require
ment of the statute in regard 10 the
registration of dentists. This demurrer
is overruled and the plea sustained.
The opinion is careful review or the
law in regard to the regulation of the
practice OF dentistry and medicine not
only i'm this state but I'm other states OF
the Union. His honor says: The ques-
ton presented for our decision under
the pleadings, therefore, is whether the
defendant had the right by virtue OF
his authority to practice medicine ana
surgery, 10 practice dentistry. The an
swer TO this question depends upon the
construction to be giHn To the statute
regulating the prac~ce OF dentistry.
taken i'm connection with that regulat-
ing the practice of medicine, as, inde-
pendent of these statutes, there can be
no doubt OF the right OF the defendant
to practice dentistry
The statutes in regard to the practice
% fthe two professions are cited and
then Judge Tillinghast says: THE evil
dent purpose OF the General Assembly
i'm the passage Of the act relating to the
practice of dentistry was TO protect the
public from being imposed upon by per-
sons who. while holding themselves out
as competenttto extract clean or repair
teeth. or replace them by artificial one,
vet from want OF instruction and skill
i'm the art We're wholly unfit to perform
such "A delicate and highly important
function. See state VS.. Mylord. as to
the object OF the act regulating the
practice of medicine and surgery"
Judge Tillinghast. after showing the
steps by which dentistry has become a
very important branch OF medical sci
ence. says that II is clear that the stat
ute i'm regard to the registration of dem
lists can not apply To physicians who
must he familiar with the anatomy OF
the body in it's entirety and presumed
10 be familiar Wit hthe law OF physio.
logy and able 10 minister as far as may
De 10 the relief of pain. disease and
physical ailments OF all sorts and kind
The statute should not be taken by it
self the courts holds. but considered
i'm connection with the other laws reg
ulating the practice OF medicine and
surgnery. the law under which DIR
Peck claims the right to act.
Attention rs called I'm the opinion &c
the statutes and decisions i'm the othes
states 10 show that the rights of sur
goons and physicians should be re-
spected 20 the extent of their licenses
Frank =. Nolan was counsel for the de-
feudaut