Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-09-22

2 = - - -
construction are applicable to repeal
ing clauses as to other portions Of =
statute. (Smith vs. The R6ople. ~
N, r. 339; IS Am. 9 Eng. Encsuf Al
"a Ed. 1901 I1lthe case uf Smith |
VS. The People supf The q 'ourf y::1
"A clause IN = etnt1te pllrp ~
repeal other Ast1tnte 10 "a
the same rules sot int
other enactmenfat md the intel ul
prevail over litefSi inter-
One part Of an Act Of the fee1slAturs
may be referred to in aid Of the in1s
depreciation Of other parts OF the
same act"
In the case OF. lack vs. Jastrc:
State Board Of Health VS. Ross and
Thorpe VS. Schooling, supra. cited in
support of the rule held applicable in
this case, all contain repeating sec
tions practically identical with Sec
ton eighteen of the Act of 1905.
Even If the rule we have held gov
erning in this case were not appli-
cable. nevertheless, appellant could
not prevail for the reason that the
provisions of the Act of 1899, relative
/ to the granting of temporary certifi-
Gates, are in conflict with certain Of
! the provisions of the Act Of 1905. By
section one of the latter Act it IS
provided: THAT it shall hereafter
be unlawful for any person, or per-
sons, to practice medicine, surgery
or obstretics in this State without
8 first obtaining a license so to do as
hereinafter provided By section
seven it is provided: After this law
goes into effect. any person desiring
to practice medicine, surgery or OBJ.
lstetrics or any of the various branch
es of medicine in this State, shall,
before beginning to practice, procure
from the State Board of Medical Ex-
i aminers certificate that such person
is entitled to practice. medicine. sur
cry, Q, obstetrics in this State, etc
If under the pre- .isions of the Act OF
1905 quotea, it is necessary to obtain
!. lice-e from the State Board OF
Medical Examiners before lawfully be
coming entitled to practice, how can
it be argued that one can also be law
fully entitled to practice upon a Ger
q tificate issued simply by the Secretary
J of the Board, and upon the issuance
of which the Board has not passed?
The Act of 1899 did not contain any
similar provision making it incum
! bent to obtain a license from the
Board Of Medical Examiners before
beginning to practice. 1t authorized
such Board to issue licenses at regu
lar meetings and permitted the Sec
rotary of said Board to grant tenn
porary certificates between the regu
lar meetings, good until the next regu
- - ~ Tel: : ~
Act of 1905 as whole and we thint
it is clearly manifest that it was tnt
intention of the legislature to provide
. that no one should be permitted tt
practice medicine, surgery or Obstet
, RIGS in this State except after obtain
ing a license to do so from the Stat
/. Board of Medical Examiners
/. i 1t is argued that as only two regula
: meetings of the Board are. provide,
! for per annum, construction of tn
t statute as here given will impose
5 great hardship on those seeking I,
: enter the practice between such regu
! lar meetings, and to impute such In
j. tention upon the legislature would b
i unfair to that body. Doubtless tn
3 legislature in the passage of the Ac
; of 1905, was considering the publ
IL 9OOu IdluCI LuAu Tic COuVculCuCC Y
/ private individuals. but the legisls
8 Eture, also doubtless. intended to OF
i viate the inconvenience that appl
il cants to practice might experience
J. from being unable to longer obtai
r temporary certificates. by the pro
/ vision, not found in the Act of 189:
i permitting special meetings of tn
e Board to be held at the call of tn
5 President of the Board. upon tw'
& weeks published notice.
r The conclusion we have reache
:, upon the main question makes it vi
necessary to consider others presen
) ed in the record.
= The Judgment and order of the tri
Il court are affirmed.
4 We concur:
= Fitzgerald. c. J.
q Talbot, j.