{ "id": 2450564, "name": "Eugene Holt Eastman v. People, etc., for Use of the State Board of Health", "name_abbreviation": "Eastman v. People ex rel. State Board of Health", "decision_date": "1897-06-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "236", "last_page": "240", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ill. App. 236" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "115 Ill. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2878784 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/115/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 Ill. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5412274 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/128/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 Ill. 140", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2929745 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/124/0140-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 Ill. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5309832 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/71/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 289", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "97 Ill. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "94 Ill. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "24 Hun, 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun,", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 495, "char_count": 7557, "ocr_confidence": 0.522, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.178808872513098e-07, "percentile": 0.9566750802846035 }, "sha256": "9c517f4b5b738383c43c914e30d1746f7f856e0ee5049c5136a21d229eb4e167", "simhash": "1:1f3ac84cf4233f91", "word_count": 1298 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:26.715064+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Eugene Holt Eastman v. People, etc., for Use of the State Board of Health." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice \"Wall\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment for one hundred dollars as a penalty for practicing medicine without license, under Par. 10, Ch. 91, B. S. It appears that the appellant was engaged in the practice of \u201c the profession of osteopathy,\u201d as it is termed in the briefs; that he had an office where he received patients, and that he visited patients at their homes; that he advertised his system and his skill therein by publications in the newspapers, and that he professed ability to understand and treat human ailments intelligently and successfully.\nSo far as shown his treatment consisted wholly of rubbing and manipulating the affected parts with his hands and fingers, and by flexing and moving the limbs of the patient in various ways.\nIt is insisted on his behalf that because he used no medicines or instruments he is not amenable to the statute.\nPar. 14, of Chi 91, declares that \u201c Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of this act who shall treat, operate on, or prescribe for any physical ailment of another.\u201d\nIt is argued on behalf of appellant that this provision must receive reasonable interpretation, and that to \u201c treat \u201d implies the use of medicines or drugs of some sort, and to \u201c operate on \u201d implies the use of instruments of some sort. This is not so necessarily. Many of the minor operations ar\u00e9 effected without the use of instruments by mere pressure, extension, and flexion.\nThis of course implies some knowledge of anatomy and some skill. So, many forms of disease are treated by attention to the diet, habits and mode of life without resorting to medical remedies.\nIt is said by counsel that if the statute reaches this case it must include treatment by Turkish baths, massage and the like. We think not. The evidence shows that appellant held himself out as competent to treat and cure numerous .diseases, such as all forms of fevers, cerebro-spinal meningitis, catarrh; diphtheria, croup, pneumonia, asthma, indigestion, dysentery, kidney diseases, measles, paralysis, and many others, including in fact a large proportion of the ailments common to mankind. He represented himself as a graduate of the new school of \u201c Osteopathy,\u201d and held himself out as qualified to examine and treat all who might seek his aid.\n. Herein, he differs from those who give Turkish baths, massage and the like.\nHe professes to be able to diagnose and advise in respect to a long list of diseases, and to furnish discriminating and efficient treatment to those who may come to him, and while he may rely Avholly upon manipulation, flexing, rubbing, extension, etc., yet he professes to have skill and judgment in these methods, so as properly to adapt the treatment to each case, giving it what is appropriate, in amount, and with repetition at such times and to such extent as may be dictated by his knowledge and experience. \u2019 By his skill in the use of his peculiar remedies or methods he claims to be competent to relieve and cure various ailments, and therefore he invites patronage. We are referred to the case, Smith v. Lane, 24 Hun, 632. The statute of Hew York is unlike ours, and the facts of that case are unlike those in the case at bar. We think the ruling there should not control here.\nIt is suggested rather than argued that as the title of the act in question is \u201c An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois,\u201d and as the constitution provides that no act shall embrace more than one subject which must be expressed in the title, any construction which would include a matter not within the practice of medicine must be avoided, or the act is unconstitutional.\n\u201c Medicine is the art of understanding diseases and curing or relieving them when possible.\u201d\u2014Bigelow. It is that branch of physic which relates to the healing of diseases.\u2014 Dunglison.\nThis act is not restricted to any particular methods or remedies. Indeed these are almost innumerable, considering what are used and what have been discarded.\nWe are of opinion the proofs bring appellant within the act, and that he is liable to the penalty imposed thereby for practicing medicine without license.\nIt is urged the court erred in refusing to dismiss the suit for want of authority of plaintiff\u2019s attorney to institute the action.\nIt is shown by a recital of the clerk in the order of record that such a motion was made and overruled and that the defendant excepted.\nThis entry by the clerk in the orders of the court for the day is not sufficient to save the exception, and if it were, there is nothing to show that the motion was supported by anything requiring the action of the court. Such a motion should be supported by affidavit or some matter of which the court should take notice and must be preserved by a bill of exceptions.\nThe ju.dgm.ent will be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice \"Wall" } ], "attorneys": [ "Hamilton & Hamilton and. Thos. F. Ferns, attorneys for appellant.", "E. J. Yaughn and H. W. Pogue, attorneys for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Eugene Holt Eastman v. People, etc., for Use of the State Board of Health.\n1. Medicine and Surgery\u2014Recovery Against Osteopathist for Practicing Medicine Without a License Sustained.\u2014The appellant was engaged in the practice of \u201c the profession of osteopathy,\" and the State Board of Health brought suit against him for practicing medicine without a license, and obtained a judgment for the statutory penalty. Held, that the proofs brought him within the provisions of the law, and that he is liable to the penalty imposed thereby for practicing medicine without a license.\n2. Practice\u2014As to Motions to Dismiss for Want of Authority of Plaintiffs Attorney\u2014A. motion to dismiss a suit for want of authority of plaintiff\u2019s attorney to institute it, should be supported by affidavit or some matter of which the court should take notice, and must be preserved in a bill of exceptions if insisted on, on appeal.\nDebt, for a penalty. Appeal from the County Court of Jersey County; the Hon. Allen M. Slaten, Judge, presiding.\n-Heard in this court at the November term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 16, 1897.\nHamilton & Hamilton and. Thos. F. Ferns, attorneys for appellant.\nA statute should be so construed as not to lead to absurd consequences, but its spirit and intent effectuated. Perry County v. Jefferson County, 94 Ill. 220; People v. Hoffman, 97 Ill. 236; Hogg v. People, 15 Ill. App. 289.\nA statute in regard to medicine and surgery does not apply to one who undertakes to cure diseases by manipulating the patient\u2019s body by rubbing, kneading and pressing it. Am. and Eng. Encyclopedia of Law, Yol. 18, -429 (note); Anderson\u2019s Law Dictionary, 668; Smith v. Lane, 24 Hun (N. Y.) 632.\nThe title of the act under which this action is brought, is: \u201cAn act to regulate the practice of medicine in the State of Illinois.\u201d Under our construction this title can not be so construed as to include those practicing osteopathy.\nIf so, then we contend that any provision in this act which has not a tendency to promote the object and purpose of the said act, is clearly obnoxious to the constitutional provision that, \u201c no act hereafter passed shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.\u201d Sec. 13, Const. Ill. 1870; People v. Institution of P. D., 71 Ill. 229; Dolese v. Pierce, 124 Ill. 140; Donnersberger v. Prendergast, 128 Ill. 229.\nThe trial court erred in denying the motion of appellant, to compel attorneys for appellee to produce their authority for representing the beneficial plaintiff below, when their authority was challenged by motion. Town of Kankakee v. Kankakee & I. R. R. Co., 115 Ill. 88.\nE. J. Yaughn and H. W. Pogue, attorneys for appellee." }, "file_name": "0236-01", "first_page_order": 234, "last_page_order": 238 }