Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1910-01-15
DR.. SAXENMEYER
LOSES HIS FIGHT
FOR STATE LICENSE
Supreme Court Upolds Action Of
Board Denying Privilege to !.
Jersey City Dentist.
Especial to the Newark star

TRENTON, Jan. 15.-In an opinion
pei the State Board of Dentistry to
filed in the Supreme Court today by
Justice Bergen, the proceedings under
! which DR.. Charles B.. Saxenmeyer, a
dentist, of Jersey City, sought to COM
grant him a license Is dismissed. The
ground upon which the dismissal is
based is that the doctor refused to sub
NIT to an examination prescribed by
the State board since he had not been
previously licensed to practise in an
other State. The court also holds that
from the fac that the doctor had been
indicted in Hudson county for violating
the statute under which his application
was filed was another -eason the board
was justified in refusing the doctor =.
license to practise in this State.
While the State board denies the al
legation. the doctor has always insist
ed that the reason he was deprived of
a license was for the reason that he re-
fused to sign an agreement to practise
only ethical dentistry, and not to adj
yertise his business.
THE primary object of the act is to-
forbid the practise of dentistry by
persons not qualified continued jus
tice Bergen, "and to determine whether
VI hOtt iht oAiAiPiC IN III
binary method of an examination
by a board appointed for that pur-
pose is required, and when a success
full examination has been passed and
the other conditions imposed by the
act complied with it is the duty Of the
board to grant a license.
The examination is for the benefit
of the public, its object being to pro-
tect the public against incompetent
practitioners, and no person Is preciud-.
ed. subject to proper conditions con-
tanned in the statute, from applying
for a license and submitting himself
10 an examination, but when one
seeks a license who is unwilling to sub
NIT to the examination, the waving
OF such examination by the State
I Board is committed to its discretion.
They are not commanded by the law
to waive the examination, but they
may do SO IL the applicant places him.
self within the class TO which the
exercise of their discretion is per-
mitted by the law.
DIR. Saxenmeyer's application was
considered and refused by the State
board because, as appears from the az
fdavit of its secretary, among other
reasons no proof was submitted that
HC was iiCtiStu u DIdCtiSc III tte Cldte
of Pennsylvania, after examination and
full compliance with the laws of that
State. Neither the diploma from the
University of Pennsylvania nor the in
dorsement thereon a be said to be
satisfactory proof that he was licensed
to practise in Pennsylvania after ex-
animation and full compliance with its
laws, nor are they satisfactory proof
that a license was aver granted to him
in Pennsylvania.
1.-THE ~affidavits of the State board
show that DR.. Saxenmeyer presented
his diploma to the secretary OF the
board of examiners of Pennsylvania,
and that he made the Endorsement
thereon as a matter of course by the
State hoard of examiners, and that
no examination was made of the re-
lator by that board as to his oualilca-
tons to practise dentistry.
There is also another reason upon
which the board of examiners OF this
State base their denial of this applica-
ton, n one which we deem equally
decisive against it. 1t appears that
before DIR. Saxenmeyer's application
was considered and denied he had been
indicted by the grand jury of Hudson
county for violating the statute under
winch his application was filed, and
IN opinion this furnished ample JUS
~tincatlon for the action of the State
board in refusing to issue a license to
the relator."