State v. Liffring

• Citation: 61 Ohio St. 39,55 N.E. 168
• Parties: STATE v. LIFFRING.
• Decision Date: 24 October 1899
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio

55 N.E. 168

61 Ohio St. 39

STATE v. LIFFRING.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

October 24, 1899

Exceptions from court of common pleas, Lucas county.

William J. Liffring was indicted for practicing medicine without a certificate. From an order sustaining a demurrer to the indictment, the state brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled.

In the court of common pleas the following indictment was returned against Liffring: ‘The State of Ohio, Lucas County-ss Court of common pleas of the September term in the year of our Lord 1898. The jurors of the grand jury of the state of Ohio, within and for the body of the county aforesaid, on their oaths, in the name and by the authority of the state of Ohio, do find and present that William J. Liffring, late of the county aforesaid, on the 20th day of September in the year of our Lord 1898, at the county aforesaid, did knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully practice medicine in the state of Ohio 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, in this: that at the time and place aforesaid he, the said William J. Liffring, did, for a fee, to wit, the sum of two and 50/ 100 dollars, prescribe, direct, and recommend for the use of one Carey B. McClelland a certain agency, 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 grand jury; he, the said William J Liffring, at the time aforesaid, not having left for record with the probate judge of that county, Lucas, a certificate from the state board of medical registration and examination of the state of Ohio entitling him to practice medicine or surgery within the state of Ohio, as required by the act aforesaid, and he, the said William J. Liffring, at the time aforesaid not being entitled under the act aforesaid, or the law of Ohio, to practice medicine and surgery, or either medicine or surgery, within the state of Ohio; contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Ohio.' A demurrer was filed to this indictment, which, upon hearing, was sustained. To the ruling of the common pleas court in that respect an exception was taken. The case is brought here upon exception, to obtain a decision of this court for the government of future cases.

The "system of rubbing and kneading the body commonly known as ‘Osteopathy’ " is not an "agency", within Act Feb. 27, 1896, "to regulate the practice of medicine", 92 Ohio Laws, 44, which forbids the prescribing of any "drug or medicine or other agency" for the treatment of disease by a person who has not obtained from the board of medical registration and examination a certificate of qualification.

Syllabus by the Court

The ‘system of rubbing and kneading the body commonly known as ‘Osteopathy," is not an ‘agency,’ within the meaning of Act Feb. 27, 1896, ‘to regulate the practice of medicine’ (92 Ohio Laws, p. 44), which forbids the prescribing of any ‘drug or medicine or other agency’ for the treatment of disease by a person who has not obtained from the board of medical registration and examination a certificate of qualification.

F. S. Monnett, Atty. Gen., and Charles G. Sumner (R. E. Westfall, associate counsel), for the State.

I. N. Huntsberger, Foraker, Outcalt, Granger & Prior, and Wilby & Wald, for defendant.

SHAUCK, J. (after stating the facts).

Counsel for the state urge upon us the view that when Liffring did ‘prescribe, direct, and recommend for the use of one Carey B. McClelland a certain agency, 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,' as charged in the indictment, he practiced medicine, as defined in section 4403f of the act ‘to regulate the practice of medicine in Ohio,’ passed February 27, 1896 (92 Ohio Laws, p. 44), and not having procured from the state board of medical registration and examination, and left with the probate judge of the county, a certificate of qualification to practice medicine or surgery, as required by sections 4403c and 4403d of the act, he is guilty of the misdemeanor defined in section 4403g, and subject to fine or imprisonment or both. The practice which the act regulates is defined in...