Sheldon v. Clark
New York Supreme Court
ON return to the certiorari, in this cause, it appeared, that an action of debt had been brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, before the justice, to recover the penalty of 35 dollars, for practising and administering medicine, contrary to the act,* and without obtaining the certificate, or making such proof as is required by the 1st section of the act.
Read the full summary
ON return to the certiorari, in this cause, it appeared, that an action of debt had been brought by the defendant in error, against the plaintiff in error, before the justice, to recover the penalty of 35 dollars, for practising and administering medicine, contrary to the act,* and without obtaining the certificate, or making such proof as is required by the 1st section of the act. The defendant requested an adjournment, that he might procure two witnesses from the state of Vermont, to prove that he practised physic for more than two years before the 1st March, 1797, which was objected to,…
1Per curiam
The averment, that the defendant practised physic contrary to the statute, was sufficient; and it was incumbent on the defendant, by his plea, to have brought himself within some of the provisos of the act. As he has not done so, either by pleading or evidence, we are of opinion that the judgment ought to be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by24 opinions
- Rowell v. . JanvrinNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Eastman v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- People v. PhippinMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- People v. . BriggsNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- State v. DentWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1884
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.