statute,78 though the medicine administered is a proprietary remedy prepared and sold by himself.79 And it is not necessary that one acting as a physician should have claimed or advertised himself to be a regular legal or competent practitioner.80 The true question for the jury is, Did he administer the drugs, medicines, or appliances as a physician, or sell them as a druggist? 81 Nor is it material whether he exercises his skill, or attempts to exercise skill, upon one patient or upon a greater number.82 The rule is different, however, though the vendor gives advice gratuitously as to the medicine which he sells, where he expressly states at the time that he is not a physician;83 though the mere fact that no charge was made in addition to the ordinary price of the remedy does not prevent the act from constituting practising medicine. Nor does a patent securing the exclusive right to manufacture and use certain medicines authorize the patentee to prescribe and administer them in the character of a physician, without being licensed as such.85 So, the fact that one is a practising physician, registered as such, gives him no right to sell drugs or patent medicines to one not his patient, without having taken out a license as a druggist; and this rule is not affected by a provision of the druggist law that nothing therein shall apply to or in T6 State v. Van Doran. 109 N. C. 864. 14 S. E. 32; Payne v. State (Tenn.) 79 S. W. 1025; Reg. v. Howarth, 24 Ont. Rep. 561; Queen v. Barnfield, 4 B. C. 305, 3 Can. Crim. Cas. 161; Reg. v. Coulson, 27 Ont. Rep. 59; Apothecaries Co. v. Nottingham, 34 L. T. N. S. 76. And see Davis v. Cassidy, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 955, 64 S. W. 633. The fact that a druggist was regis tered under an act which entitled him to act as an apothecary as well as a druggist does not authorize him to prac tise medicine. Reg. v. Howarth, 24 Ont. Rep. 561. And one who leased and occupied rooms for several months for the declared purpose of practising dentistry, and who did dental work for three or more persons, and at times engaged in filling teeth and at others at dental work at the bench, must be regarded as having engaged in the practice of dentistry within the meaning of a statutory provision prohibiting it without a li cense. Ferner v. State, 151 Ind. 247. 51 N. E. 360. Adams County v. Cole, 9 Ind. App. 474, 36 N. E. 912. But the words "act or practise as an apothecary," in a statutory provision making one liable to a penalty for every offense of acting or practising as such, are directed against an habitual or continuous course of conduct; and where one without a certificate supplies medicine to three different persons at different times on the same day, he is liable for but one penalty. Apothecaries Co. v. Jones [1893] 1 Q. B. 93, 67 L. T. N. S. 677, 41 Week. Rep. 267, 17 Cox, C. C. 588, 5 Reports, 101, 57 J. P. 56. Com. v. St. Pierre, 175 Mass. 48, 55 N. E. 482; People use of State Bd. of Health v. Smith, 208 II. 31, 69 N. E. 810, Affirming 108 Ill. App. 499. And in such case his declarations, accompanying such acts, that he was not a physician, are admissible in a prosecution for illegally practising, as a part of the res gesta. Com. v. St. Pierre, 175 Mass. 48, 55 N. E. 482. "Reg. v. Howarth, 24 Ont. Rep. 561, 1 Can. Crim. Cas. 14. But see College State v. Van Doran, 109 N. C. 864, of Physicians v. Rose, 6 Mod. 44; Reg. 14 S. E. 32. 861. State v. Paul, 56 Neb. 369, 76 N. W. 81 Holland v. Adams, 21 Ala. 680. v. Hall, 8 Ont. Rep. 407. terfere with the business of any practising physician who does not keep open shop for the dispensing or compounding of medicines.86 And a covenant not to engage in the practice of medicine in a given locality does not prevent the covenantor from becoming a druggist.87 453. Holding out as a physician.-The practice of medicine embraces any holding out of one's self habitually to persons employing him, as a professor of the art of healing diseases;88 and this is the rule though he claims to cure but a single disease or addiction.89 And the card of one who gives a bottle of medicine to a patient with "Dr." preceding his name is prima facie evidence that he was practising medicine at the time.90 The assumption of the title "doctor," however, is not unlawful, if not prohibited or penalized by statute.91 And the use of the title "doctor" to which one is entitled is not unlawful, though the source of it was such that it did not entitle him to practise medicine. 92 And a statutory definition of practising medi "People v. Moorman, 86 Mich. 433, 49 N. W. 263; Com. v. Hovious, 112 Ky. 491, 66 S. W. 3. And see Suffolk County v. Shaw, 21 App. Div. 146, 47 N. Y. Supp. 349. A statute prohibiting the sale or giving away of opium and other prohibited drugs except on prescription from some physician, and requiring that physicians or pharmacists who prescribe opium or any of the drugs named shall keep a record thereof open to public inspection, does not permit a practising physician to deal out such drugs without a prescription. State v. Jones, 18 Or. 256, 22 Pac. 840. But the exemption provided for in a statute prohibiting the practice of pharmacy by persons not having a license, but providing that it shall not apply to the business of a practitioner of medicine who is not the proprietor of a drug store, so as to prevent him from supplying his patients with such articles as he may deem proper, is not confined to the compounding of drugs and the filling of prescriptions done in a physician's own business or practise, but permits a physician casually to fill a prescription made by another physician, and to compound une drugs necessary therefor. Suffolk County v. Shaw, 21 App. Div. 146, 47 N. Y. Supp. 349. Greenfield v. Gilman, 140 N. Y. 168, 35 N. E. 435. Davidson v. Bohlman, 37 Mo. App. 576; Matthei v. Wooley, 69 Ill. App. 654; Benham v. State, 116 Ind. 112, 18 N. E. 454; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6, 37 N. W. 888; Musser v. Chase, 29 Ohio St. 577. A magnetic healer who styles himself "professor," and holds himself out to the public as a healer of disease, and whose treatment in the case in question consisted in holding an affected limb and rubbing it, is within the terms of a statute requiring a license of persons who announce to the public a readiness to cure disease, or who use in connection with their names any word intended to designate them as practitioners of medicine in any of its branches. Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 59 L. R. A. 190, 64 N. E. 862. Benham v. State, 116 Ind. 112, 18 N. E. 454. Mayer v. State, 64 N. J. L. 325, 45 Atl. 624. "State v. Mylod, 20 R. I. 632, 41 L. R. A. 430, 40 Atl. 753. Carpenter v. Hamilton, 37 L. T. N. S. 157; Hunter v. Clare [1899] 1 Q. B. 635, 68 L. J. Q. B. N. S. 278, 80 L. T. N. S. 197, 47 Week. Rep. 394, 63 J. P. 308; Ellis v. Kelly, 6 Hurlst. & N. 222, 30 L. J. Mag. Cas. N. S. 35, 6 Jur. N. S. 1113, 3 L. T. N. S. 331, 9 Week. Rep. 56. So, proof that a man's name was engraved upon the door of his residence, and that upon another plate in the same frame was the name of another, who was a duly qualified medical practitioner, with the addition of the words “Surgeon, Accoucheur, etc.," and that on another door was written the word "Surgery," and on a lamp over the door ap cine including any person who shall profess publicly to be a physician and to prescribe for the sick, or who shall append to his name the letters "M. D.," does not include persons prescribing moral doctrine for the cure of disease, such as Christian Scientists.93 454. Action under supervision of another.-A person professing to heal or prescribe for another, or otherwise treat any physical or mental ailment for remuneration, is not relieved from the operation of a statutory prohibition against practising without a license, by the fact that the operations were performed, and the medicines were administered and given, under the direction and charge of a licensed physician and surgeon. 94 But students are usually permitted to prescribe and act under the supervision of regularly licensed preceptors.9 95 And an unqualified person may carry on the business of a physician, apothecary, or surgeon, if he does so by means of duly qualified assistants, and does not himself act personally in any of those capacities.96 455. Acting as specialist.-Statutory provisions prohibiting the practice of the medical art without a license are intended to prevent the practice of any branch, either of the medical or surgical art, by unskilful or unlearned persons, though they pretend to practise for particular diseases or particular organs only, and not as general physicians or 'surgeons.97 And one who holds himself out as an oculist, or eye peared the words "Surgeon, Accoucheur," is not sufficient to warrant a conviction against the former for falsely pretending to be a surgeon. Pedgrift v. Chevallier, 8 C. B. N. S. 246, 29 L. J. Mag. Cas. N. S. 225, 6 Jur. N. S. 1341, 2 L. T. N. S. 360, 8 Week. Rep. 500. 93 Kansas City v. Baird, 92 Mo. App. The performance of dental work, and charging and receiving pay therefor for the performer's own use, however, constitute the practice of dentistry within the meaning of a statute prohibiting the practice of dentistry without a certificate from the board of examiners, though the work was done as a mere student, under the direction of a licensed dentist. State v. Reed, 68 Ark. 331, 58 S. W. 40. "Davies v. Makuna, 54 L. J. Ch. N. S. 1148, L. R. 29 Ch. Div. 596, 53 L. T. N. S. 314, 33 Week. Rep. 668, 50 J. P. 5. But, while an agreement between a qualified medical practitioner and an unqualified person, in which the un qualified person described himself as a medical practitioner, the agreement be ing that the medical practitioner was to serve him in his professional capacity, might not be invalidated by false description, under a statutory provision imposing a fine upon any person wilfully and fraudulently pretending to use the name or title of physician or doctor of medicine, if such unqualified person, in the prosecution of business under contract, attended patients in the way in which a medical practitioner ordinarily attends them, and in fact acted as an apothecary, the agreement will be taken to have been made in the prosecution of an illegal business, and therefore void. Ibid. "United States v. Williams, 5 Cranch, C. C. 62, Fed. Cas. No. 16,713. A specialist in the treatment of diseases is a physician or surgeon who ap plies himself to the study and practice of some particular branch of his profes sion. Baker v. Hancock, 29 Ind. App. 456, 63 N. E. 323, 64 N. E. 38. And surgery and obstetrics as popularly understood are embraced in the specialist, holds himself out as a physician and surgeon within a statutory prohibition against such holding out without a license.98 But the business of an optician, consisting of making spectacles to fit the eyes, is not within a statutory provision prohibiting the unlicensed practice of medicine or surgery, whether his spectacles are ground generally for the trade or specially for each customer.99 And dentistry is not the practice of medicine or included in the idea,100 though a physician or surgeon may practise dentistry so far as it is incidental to his business as a physician or surgeon; and the courts have refused to regard a dentist as a mechanic, the tools of whose trade are exempt from execution.2 The practice of midwifery, however, is an important department of medicine, and is included, unless expressly excepted, in provisions regulating the practice of medicine. 3 456. Christian Science. The practice of Christian Science, consisting of prayer for divine assistance, and the encouragement and direction of the thoughts of the patient, without recommending or administering any drug or medicine, or giving him any course of physical treatment, is not practising medicine or surgery under a statute defining the practice of medicine or surgery to be the prescribing, directing, or recommending any drug or medicine or other title of an act regulating the practice of medicine. Little v. State, 60 Neb. 749, 51 L. R. A. 717, 84 N. W. 248. "Com. v. St. Pierre, 175 Mass. 48, 55 N. E. 482. And the giving of advice, and the application of external remedies to the eye, is not the practice of the medical, but rather of the surgical, art, within the meaning of a prohibition against practising medicine without a license. United States v. Williams, 5 Cranch, C. C. 62, Fed. Cas. No. 16,713. "Smith v. People, 92 Ill. App. 22; People use of State Bd. of Health v. Smith, 208 Ill. 31, 69 N. E. 810. An advertisement by an optician engaged in making spectacles to fit the eye, asking persons afflicted with spots before the eyes, blurring, inflammation, granulation, cataract, dizziness, headaches, etc., to call immediately, and stating that he had given universal satisfaction, is not a profession to treat physical ailment or deformity, within the meaning of a statute requiring a license in case of such profession, where he did not state an intention to give surgical or medical treatment. Ibid. 100 People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6, 37 N. W. 888; Cherokee City v. Perkins, 118 Iowa, 405, 92 N. W. 68. 'State v. Vandersluis, 42 Minn. 129, 6 L. R. A. 119, 43 N. W. 789; State ex rel. Flickinger v. Fisher, 119 Mo. 344, 22 L. R. A. 799, 24 S. W. 167. Authority to practise medicine and surgery includes the right to practise dentistry as a branch of surgery, without a compliance upon the part of the surgeon with the requirements of a law as to the practice of dentistry. State v. Beck, 21 R. I. 288, 45 L. R. A. 269, 43 Atl. 366. "Whitcomb v. Reid, 31 Miss. 567, 66 Am. Dec. 579. Contra, Maxon v. Perrott, 17 Mich. 332, 97 Am. Dec. 191. And a dentist, though having a diploma from a regular dental college, and on the roll of dental surgeons, and registered according to law, is not exempt from jury duty as a practitioner of medicine. State ex rel. Flickinger v. Fisher, 119 Mo. 344, 22 L. R. A. 799, 24 S. W. 167. People use of State Bd. of Health v. Arendt, 60 Ill. App. 89; State v. Welch, 129 N. C. 579, 40 S. E. 120. agency for treatment or relief of wounds, infirmities, or diseases.* And it has been held that such practice is not in violation of a statute prohibiting the practice of medicine or surgery, without defining it, in any of its branches, without a license. The contrary rule, however, that a system of healing diseases without a knowledge of anatomy, physiology, pathology, or hygiene, based upon the theory that all diseases are mere beliefs and not real facts, is at variance with a statutory requirement of certain educational qualifications for the practice of medicine or surgery, and opposed to the general policy of the law relative to the existence and treatment of disease, has been announced. And the practice of Christian Science as a medium of healing, without a license, has been held to be a violation of a law requiring a license for the treatment of physical or mental ailments." 457. Osteopathy.-The system of rubbing and kneading the body, commonly called "osteopathy," is comprehended within the practice of medicine defined by statute as consisting of prescribing or recommending any drug, medicine, application, or treatment for the relief of injury, infirmity, or disease. And osteopathy is the practice of medicine within the meaning of a general act regulating the practice of medicine and treating human ailments, which renders the *Evans v. State, 9 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 222, 6 Ohio N. P. 129. But a court cannot take judicial notice of what the system known as Christian Science is. And an information charging a person with having prescribed and recommended Christian Setence does not sufficiently describe the of fense and show that it was forbidden by a statute, where it does not indicate that Christian Science is either a drug, medicine, or other agency of the kind described by law. Evans v. State, 9 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 222, 6 Ohio N. P. 129. "State v. Mylod, 20 R. I. 632, 41 L. R. A. 428, 40 Atl. 753. And see Reg. v. Stewart, 17 Ont. Rep. 4. 'Re First Church of Christ, 205 Pa. 543, 63 L. R. A. 411, 97 Am. St. Rep. 753, 55 Atl. 536, Affirming 6 Pa. Dist. R. 745. And the same has been held with reference to the professional services of a medical clairvoyant. Bibber v. Simp. son, 59 Me. 181. 453; Eastman v. People, 71 Ill. App. 236; People use of State Bd. of Health v. Jones, 92 Ill. App. 445; People use of State Bd. of Health v. Jones, 92 Ill. App. 447; People v. Gordon, 194 Ill. 560, 88 Am. St. Rep. 165, 62 N. E. 858. So, statutes restricting the right to practise medicine or surgery to regis tered physicians, requiring the filing of diplomas, apply to a physician giving electric treatment, as well as to physicians acting according to the usual methods. Davidson v. Bohlman, 37 Mo. App. 576. And a hydropathic practitioner who prescribes cold water for his patients assumes to be a physician, and prac tises medicine within the meaning of a statutory provision prohibiting a recov ery for compensation by a physician practising without a license. Coyle v. Campbell, 10 Ga. 570. 'Little v. State, 60 Neb. 749, 51 L. R. A. 717, 84 N. W. 248; Bragg v. State, 134 Ala. 165, 58 L. R. A. 925, 32 So. 767; Eastman v. People, 71 Ill. App. And see Parks v. State, 159 Ind. 211, 59 L. R. A. 190. 64 N. E. 862. 'State v. Buswell, 40 Neb. 158, 24 L. 236. R. A. 68, 58 N. W. 728. State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St. 289, 55 L. R. A. 791, 87 Am. St. Rep. 605, 62 N. E. 325; Jones v. People, 84 Ill. App. Medicine, in its ordinary sense, as applied to human ailments, means something which is administered either in |