State v. Gallagher

• Decision Date: 08 January 1912
• Citation: 143 S.W. 98,101 Ark. 593
• Parties: STATE v. GALLAGHER
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

143 S.W. 98

101 Ark. 593

STATE v. GALLAGHER

Supreme Court of Arkansas

January 8, 1912

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court, Charleston District; Jeptha H Evans, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Appellee was charged with a violation of the practice of medicine act in the Franklin Circuit Court, upon the following indictment:

"The grand jury of Franklin County and Charleston District, in the name and by the authority of the State of Arkansas, accuse one Doctor Gallagher of the crime of unlawful practice of medicine committed as follows: The said one Doctor Gallagher on the 6th day of September, 1911, in the county and district aforesaid, did unlawfully and repeatedly prescribe and direct for the use of Mrs. Randolph Gibson an agency commonly known as chiropractics for the treatment, cure and relief of a bodily disease of the said Mrs. Randolph Gibson; the said Doctor Gallagher not then and there having first procured a certificate authorizing him to practice medicine as provided by the Revised Statutes of the State of Arkansas, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas."

To the indictment a general demurrer was interposed and sustained and from the judgment the State appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Hal L. Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant, for appellant; John D. Arbuckle, Prosecuting Attorney, Thomas A. Pettigrew and Sam R. Chew, of counsel.

The prohibitions in the statute, Kirby's Digest §§ 5241 and 5243, are directed against the practice of medicine by any school, or under any system, without authority prescribed by the law. Webster defines the practice of medicine as "the science and art dealing with the prevention, cure or alleviation of disease;" and the Standard Dictionary defines it as "the healing art--the science of the preservation of health and treating of disease for the purpose of cure." In view of these definitions, it is clear that the Legislature, in enacting the law regulating the practice of medicine, intended by the use of the term "other agency" to inhibit any and all methods and means of the practice unless the person engaged therein had in all respects complied with the law. Chiropractics comes within the meaning of the statute. 124 N.W. 167; 58 L. R. A. (Ala.) 925; 81 N.E. (N.Y.) 1171; 85 N.E. 858; 37 N.W. 888; 24 L. R. A. (Neb.) 68; 51 L. R. A. 717; 54 N.W. 513; 90 S.W. 627; 55 N.E. 482; 101 N.W. 429; Id. 431; 124 N.W. 627; 109 N.W. 730; 103 N.W. (S. D.) 17; 121 S.W. 501; 124 S.W. 956; 90 N.E. 62; 135 S.W. 465; 114 P. 390; 114 P. 897; 131 N.W. 659.

Geo. S. Evans, for appellee.

This case turns upon the construction of the statute defining the practice of medicine, and in this the cases cited by appellant are of no assistance because the statutes upon which the decisions cited are based define the phrase "practice of medicine" differently from ours. Words are limited by their environment; their meaning is ascertained from their context and their relation to other words. Such being the rule, the phrase "other agency" employed in the statute does not include chiropractics. Kirby's Digest, § 5243; 61 O. St. 39; 76 Am. St. Rep. 358; 70 N.J.L. 34; 1 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases, 51; 81 Miss. 291; 33 So. 653; 95 Am. St. Rep. 471; 133 N.C. 729; 46 S.E. 401; 98 Am. St. Rep. 731. See also 61 Ark. 502; 67 Ark. 159; 67 Ark. 359.

KIRBY J. HART, J., dissenting.

OPINION

KIRBY, J., (after stating the facts).

The only question presented is whether the indictment charges appellee with the commission of a public offense under sections 5242 and 5243 of Kirby's Digest, which read as follows:

"Section 5242. Every person who shall practice or who shall attempt to practice medicine in any of its branches, or who shall perform or attempt to perform any surgical operation for any person, or upon any person within this State, without first having complied with the provisions of this act, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than five hundred dollars; or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period of not less than ten days nor more than ninety days or by both fine and imprisonment; and each day of such practice shall constitute a separate offense; (b) provided, however, that this shall not apply to persons now engaged in the practice of medicine until ninety days after the passage of this act, the time allowed them for procuring their certificate."

"Section 5243. Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine, in any of its departments, within the meaning of this act, who shall append 'M. D.' or 'M. B.' to his name; or repeatedly prescribe or direct, for the use of any person or persons, any drug or medicine or other agency for the treatment, cure or relief of any bodily injury, deformity or disease. Provided that nothing in this act shall be so construed as to prevent any person from administering domestic remedies without receiving any compensation therefor, and nothing herein shall apply to the so-called midwife."

The indictment accuses Doctor Gallagher of the unlawful practice of medicine, alleging that he "did unlawfully and repeatedly prescribe and direct for the use of Mrs. Randolph Gibson an agency commonly known as chiropractics for the treatment, cure and relief of a bodily disease of the said Mrs. Randolph Gibson; the said Doctor Gallagher not then and there having first procured a certificate authorizing him to practice medicine as provided by the revised statutes of the State of Arkansas."

Appellee is not charged with performing or attempting to perform any surgical operation, nor with having appended either the letters, "M. D." or "M. B." to his name, nor with prescribing any drug or medicine in the treatment of disease, but only with prescribing and directing for the use of the patient "an agency commonly known as chiropractics, for the treatment, cure and relief of a bodily disease," etc.

It is claimed by appellee that chiropractics is not an agency, within the meaning of the said law, and it is defined in his brief as "the science and art of adjusting by hand the displacements of whatsoever character that may occur in the human anatomy, the three hundred articulations of the skeletal frame being prominent, but especially the fifty-two articulations of the vertebral column, to remove abnormal pressure and occlusion from the nerve trunks which supply vitality, sensation and motion to the entire body. * * * When the articulations of the skeletal frame are perfectly adjusted so that the improper pressure is relieved and removed, the nerve stimulus restores a normal vitality, which is health. The chiropractor is a mechanic whose duty it is to see that the human anatomy is in working order."

Chiropractic is derived from the Greek, and means, primarily, to do by hand--hand manipulation. Webster's New International Dictionary defines chiropractics to be a system of healing that treats disease by manipulation of the spinal column. No benefit would be derived from reciting the definition of the practice of medicine, as given by Webster, the Standard Dictionary, or the statutes of other jurisdictions, our own statute having defined it as already set out in said section 5243. Foo Lun v. State, 84 Ark. 475, 106 S.W. 946.

In this definition the expression, "medicine, in any of its departments," is as broad and inclusive as the expression, "medicine, in any of its branches," contained in section 5242, and was doubtless used with the same meaning. It is not and can not be contended that chiropractics...