Commonwealth v. New England College of Chiropractic, Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1915
• Citation: 221 Mass. 190,108 N.E. 895
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC, Inc.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

221 Mass. 190

108 N.E. 895

COMMONWEALTH v. NEW ENGLAND COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC, Inc.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 21, 1915

COUNSEL

Herbert E. Dennison and Roger Sherman Hoar, both of Boston, for defendant.

A. C Webber, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the commonwealth.

OPINION

RUGG C.J.

This is a complaint wherein the defendant corporation is charged with granting the degree of Doctor of Chiropractic without authority and contrary to the statute. There was at the trial no controversy touching the fact that the defendant issued a certificate in which it was stated amongst other matters that:

'Alfred H. Flower, M. D., having satisfactorily completed the prescribed courses of study in the New England College of Chiropractic, passed the examinations and met all other requirements for graduation, has been declared a doctor of chiropractic.'

This certificate was signed by seven persons, all of whom wrote after their names the letters 'D. C.,' five also adding letters indicative of well-recognized degrees such as B. S., M. D., D. D. S. Flower, called as a witness by the commonwealth, after stating that the degree of Doctor of Medicine had been conferred upon him by another institution to the question, 'Have you a degree of Doctor of Chiropractic?' replied, 'Yes, that is what it claims, I believe.' He further testified that the New England College of Chiropractic conferred that degree on him and that at the same time the degree was conferred upon perhaps a dozen other persons; and that the ceremony was similar to any college or high school graduation upon a commencement day. Officers and members of the faculty of the defendant testified in substance that the letters 'D. C.' stood for Doctor of Chiropractic, but that it was not a degree. It is not contended that the defendant was authorized by any special or general act of the Legislature to confer degrees. It requires no discussion to demonstrate that the evidence of the witness Flower, if believed, warranted a finding by the jury that Doctor of Chiropractic was treated as a degree.

The provision of R. L. c. 208, § 75, material to the present prosecution is:

'* * * Whoever, without the authority of a special act of the General Court granting the power to give degrees, offers or grants degrees as a school, college or as a private individual, * * * shall be punished. * * *'

Its obvious purpose is to suppress the kind of deceit which arises from the pretense of power to grant academic degrees and to protect the public from the evils likely to flow from that variety of misrepresentation and imposition. The earlier part of the section deals with the simulated possession of educational distinctions, including college degrees. The section as a whole is an effort to punish the issuing and holding of sham degrees from colleges and other educational institutions. It aims to insure to the people of the commonwealth freedom from deception when dealing with those who put forward professions of educational achievement such as ordinarily is accompanied by a collegiate degree from...