The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1916-11-17
No. IL.

II il was the intention OF the Legis
lature 10 relieve members OF the
Christian Science and ether churches
from the provisions Of sections 161
and 161 OF the Public Health Law &c
the extent OF permitting them within
the rules. re~llla+ions and tenets OF a
church 20 1ua IL r. an office and there
offer PRAYER for tire hecfNg OF tn
disease 81 hose that H.. h- come &c
such church members ~ treatment
and the defendant has in good faith
acted in accordance herewith, he T.
not guilty OF the crime alleged in the
indictment.
The Christian Science church is In
terms expressly excepted from the
prohibition contained in the medical
practice acts of many of the state.
Ii is so expressly excepted in the
statutes of Maine, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, North
Carolina. North and South Dakota.
Kentucky. tennessee and Wisconsin.
We think the exception in the stat
ute in this state is broad enough 10
permit Offering prayer for the healins
of disease in accordance with the rec
ognized tenets Of the Christian Science
church. II may be said that if The
exception is SO construed, Ii willelead
to numberless persons assuming 10
cure diseases n the name of a church
for the purpose of thereby maintain
ing a business and securing a liveli-
hood. rho religious tenets # a church
must be pTacliced in good faith to
come within the exception. When
such practice is fraud or pretenss
il is not excepted from the genera
prohibition. When wrong is practicel
in the name Of religion il is not pro
tected by constitution or statute. (Re,
nolds V. L. :, 9S L. S l45: Davis Y
Be son. 153 L. s. 333; Mormon Church
V. u. s., 1876 L S. 1) Many of the
decisions referred TO by counsel may
be explained by the fact that the per-
sons therein severally considered were
frauds and shams. (See people V.
Spinella, $50 App. Div. 923; aid, 206
n. Y. 709)
A person should not be allowed 70
assume 10 practice the telets OF the
Christian Science or any church as Il
shield 70 cover business underta
ing. When a person claims to b.
practicing the religious tenets of ar
church, particularly where compens--
ton is taken therefor and the practice
is apart from a church edifice or the
sanctity of the home of the applicant.
| the question whether such person L
within the exception should be left -
| jury as a question of fact. In this
case the court charged the jury: IL
YOU find from the evidence in this case
that this defendant did engage in the
practice of medicine as alleged in the
| indictnmet, within the definition which
have given 10 you, il is 10 defense
that he did what he did from any sense
OF duty, or that he did these acts in
the practice of the religious tenets OF
! the Christian Science church" We are
of the opinion that the court was in
error in so charging the jury. The
exception was intended by the Legisls-
ture to exclude from the prohibition
the practice of the religious teRets Of
the Christian Science and other
/ churches. Ii w2s necessary, as we
have seen. that the practice be of the
tenets OF a recognized church and the
court instead Of charging the jury as
stated shCuld have left 10 the jury the
/ question whchos ihe defendant was in
GOOD faith practicng the tenets OF
such q church wit0.3 the meaning OF
the statutory exception.
The judsment sh euld lie reversed
and new trial ordered.
; Cuddebac< and Cardozo, JJ., concur:
Willard Bartlett Oh. j., cOncurs in the
following memorandum:
!; Il concur in Judge Chase's c0nstruc-
ton of the statute But | would %
!, farther. ! deny the power Of the Lcs-
islature to make it a crime TO tre.
, disease by prayer
Collin. j.. not voting: Hogan j., all
sent: Seabury, J., not sitting.
|; Judgment reversed, etc
a. tC AcuFsus.