shall be entitled to practice physic or surgery :" 2 Rev. Stat. N. Y., ch. xiv, tit. 7, §§ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

The foregoing provisions have been amended, and perhaps some of them repealed in part by subsequent statutes. The copying these provisions was for the purpose of indicating the general scope and character of the legislation regulating and controlling the practice of medicine and surgery, without intending to furnish the exact status of the law as it now exists in the State of New York. The statutes of other states contain very similar provisions; but it does not fall within the compass of this volume to present the provisions of the law on this subject in the various states. These must be consulted in the state where information is desired on this subject. In some of the states it is expressly provided that a person shall not be permitted to recover by action for services rendered as a medical practitioner unless he shall have received a license or diploma therefor, and complied with the statutes regulating the practice of medicine and surgery. But in the absence of such a provision, a claim for services

rendered in violation of the statute could not be enforced by action at law.

§ 95. Criminal liability for practicing without license. Penalties are usually imposed by statute for a violation of the provisions of the statutes regulating the practice of medicine and surgery in the various states. And if the offender persists in a violation of the statutes on the subject, the statutes frequently provide that he may be either fined or imprisoned, or both.

On this subject the Penal Code of New York provides :

§ 356. A person who practices or attempts to practice medicine or surgery in this State, unless authorized to do so by a license or diploma from some chartered school, state board of medical examiners, or medical society, or who practices under cover of a license or diploma illegally or fraudulently obtained, is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable for the first offense by a fine of not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, and for any subsequent offense by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by im

prisonment not less than thirty days, or by both such imprisonment and fine."

It has been held that such a statute does not apply to one who undertakes to cure diseases by manipulating the body of the patient, as by rubbing, kneading or pressing it: Smith v. Lane, 24 Hun (N. Y.), 632. Where the defendant was charged with practicing without a diploma, the production of a diploma by the defendant would be prima facie evidence of a fight to it: Raynor v. State, 62 Wis. 289; Wendel v. State, 62 Wis. 300; Holmes v. Halde, 74 Me. 28.

It has been further held, in New York, that if a person engaged in the unlawful practice of medicine, contrary to the statute, kills a person by administering medicines which he believes not to be dangerous to his health or life, he is guilty of manslaughter: Marsh v. Davieson, 9 Paige, 597. And it has also been held in that state that an unlicensed physician cannot maintain an action for his services: Zimmerman v. Moerison, 14 Johns. 369; Alcott v. Barber, 1 Wend. 526; Smith v. Tracy, 2 Hall, 465. But see Bronson v. Hoffman, 7 Hun, 614.

§ 96. Criminal liability for causing death by administering a drug or medicine in a state of intoxication.

In addition to the statutory provisions in New York, before referred to, relating to the criminal liability of a physician or surgeon who in a state of intoxication administers a drug or medicine which causes death, there is a further provision in the Penal Code of that state as follows:

"§ 357. A physician or surgeon, or person practicing as such, who, being in a state of intoxication, administers any poison, drug or medi. cine, or does any other act as a physician and surgeon to another person by which the life of the latter is endangered or his health seriously affected, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Similar statutory provisions may be found in various states.

§ 97. Removal of attorneys for misconduct.

We have noticed that at common law and under statutes the confidential communications made between attorney and his client, and physician or surgeon and his patient, relating to professional business, will generally be protected, and the seal of secrecy is applied to the mouth of each under such circumstances. So we have

seen that the physician or surgeon may forfeit his right to practice as such for violation of the statutes and rules duly ordained and established by medical institutions and boards in various states.

In this connection it may be proper to remark that an attorney duly admitted to practice in any court, state or national, may forfeit this right by his misconduct; and he may be suspended or removed from such office by such court if it appear that he has been guilty of such misconduct, after investigation by the court on charges made, and after opportunity is had by the attorney to be heard on the charge: Ex parte Burr, 2 Cranch, U. S. 379; Same, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 529; Austin's Case, 5 Rawle (Pa.), 191; Re Yale, 75 N. Y. 526; Fletcher v. Dangerfield, 20 Cal. 427; State v. Sharp, 7 Ia. 191; see also 1 Field's Lawyers' Briefs, 460.

The charge or information against an attorney in such a case should state the facts with reasonable precision; and where it merely charged that the attorney took legal papers belonging to the files, etc., this was held to be too indefinite : People v. Allison, 68 Ill. 151. And all such charges