State v. Gravett
| Citation | 62 N.E. 325,65 Ohio St. 289 |
| Parties | STATE v. GRAVETT. |
| Decision Date | 03 December 1901 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Exceptions from court of common pleas, Darke county.
Henry H. Gravett was indicted for practicing medicine irregularly and a demurrer to the indictment was sustained, and the state brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.
Gravett was indicted at the October term, 1900, of the common pleas court, the charge being: ‘ The jurors of the grand jury of the county of Darke and the state of Ohio, then and there duly impaneled, sworn, and charged to inquire of and present all offenses whatever committed within the limits of said county, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority of the state of Ohio, do find and present: That Henry H Gravett, late of said county, on the 11th day of September in the year of our Lord 1900, at the county of Darke aforesaid did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully practice medicine in the state of Ohio and county aforesaid without having first complied with the provisions of the act of the general assembly of the state of Ohio entitled ‘ An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Ohio,’ passed February 27, 1896 (92 Ohio Laws, p. 44) and amended April 14, 1900 (94 Ohio Laws, p. 197), in this That at the time and place aforesaid he, the said Henry H. Gravett, did, for a fee, to wit, the sum of five ($5) dollars, prescribe and recommend for the use of one Martha Huddle a certain application, operation, and treatment, to wit, a system of rubbing and kneading the body, commonly known as ‘ osteopathy,’ for the treatment, cure, and relief of a certain bodily infirmity or disease the name and nature whereof is unknown to the jurors aforesaid; he, the said Henry H. Gravett, at the time aforesaid not having obtained or received from the state board of medical registration and examination of the state of Ohio a certificate entitling him, the said Henry H. Gravett, to practice medicine or surgery within the state of Ohio, as required by the act aforesaid; he, the said Henry H. Gravett, at the time aforesaid not being entitled, under the act aforesaid, or laws of the state of Ohio, to practice medicine or surgery within the state of Ohio, contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio.' A demurrer to this indictment was sustained, to which the present exception is prosecuted.
Rev.St. § 4403f (repealed), as amended April 14, 1900, defining a practitioner of medicine as one who shall prescribe, or who shall recommend for a fee for like use, any drug or medicine, operation, or treatment of whatever nature for the cure or relief of any wound, fracture, or bodily injury, infirmity, or disease, comprehends the system of rubbing and kneading the body known as " osteopathy" .
Syllabus by the Court
1. ‘ The system of rubbing and kneading the body, commonly known as osteopathy,’ is comprehended within the practice of medicine, defined by section 4403f of the Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of April 14, 1900.
2. One who has an established practice in the healing of diseases may be required to conform to such reasonable standard respecting qualification therefor as the general assembly may prescribe, having in view the public health and welfare.
3. A legislative enactment which discriminates against osteopathists by requiring them to hold diplomas from a college which requires four years of study as a condition to their obtaining limited certificates, which will not permit them to prescribe drugs or perform surgery, while nor requiring such time of study from those contemplating the regular practice as a condition to their obtaining unlimited certificates for the practice of medicine and surgery, is, as to such discrimination, void, and compliance therewith cannot be exacted of those who practice osteopathy.
J. M. Sheets, Atty. Gen., J. E. Todd, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. L. Clark, Pros. Atty., R. E. Westfall and Smith W. Bennett (H. J. Booth, of counsel), for the State.
Addison F. Broomhall and Anderson & Bowman, for defendant.
SHAUCK, J. (after stating the facts).
It is said that the decision of the court below is justified by State v. Liffring, 61 Ohio St. 39, 55 N.E. 168,46 L.R.A. 334 76 Am.St.Rep. 358, the act charged in the indictment not being an offense within the terms of the statute. The practice which was there charged as unlawful is the same as that charged in the present indictment. By the statute then in force one was regarded as practicing medicine who should ‘ for a fee prescribe, direct, or recommend for the use of any person, any drug or medicine, or other agency for the treatment, cure, or relief of any wound, fracture, or bodily injury, infirmity, or disease.’ The view then urged by the attorney general was that the system of rubbing or kneading the body, known as ‘ osteopathy,’ is an ‘ agency’ within the meaning of the statute; but the interpretation of the statute seemed to invoke the maxim, ‘ Noscitur a sociis,’ as an aid in determining the meaning of the word, and our conclusion was that it meant something of like character with a drug or medicine to be administered with a view to producing effects by virtue of its own potency, and that it, therefore, did not include osteopathy. But since our decision in that case, by the act of April 14, 1900, the section (section 4403f, Rev. St.) has been amended, and a more comprehensive definition given of the practice regulated, so that one is now regarded as practicing medicine, within the meaning of the act, ‘ WHO SHALL PRESCRIBE, OR WHO SHALL RECOMMEND for a fee for like use, any drug or medicine, appliance, application, operation or treatment, of whatever nature, for the cure or relief of any wound, fracture, or bodily injury, infirmity or disease.’ The amended act further contains a proviso to prevent its application ...
To continue reading
Request your trial