Commonwealth v. Dailey

Citations

• 75 Pa. Super. 510
• 1921 Pa. Super. LEXIS 50

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Physicians—Osteopaths—Bight to practice medicine — Act of March 19, 1909, P. L. l¡-6 — Act of June 11, 1911, P. L. 6S9.</p> <p>An osteopathic physician duly licensed by the Osteopathic Board of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, is not entitled under the law to engage in the general practice of medicine.</p> <p>Osteopaths are empowered to diagnose and treat diseases according to the principles of osteopathy. Their privileges are not affected by the acts of assembly relating to the practice of medicine; but the right to practice medicine is not conferred upon those licensed under the Act of March 19, 1909, P. L. 46, and its supplements, relating to osteopathy. The fact that materia medica, therapeutics and other branches taught in medical schools are also imparted at the osteopathic colleges cannot extend the right of osteopaths to practice medicine.</p> <p>Evidence — Charge of court — Sufficiency.</p> <p>In a prosecution for practicing medicine without a license, instructions to the jury that if they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant practiced medicine, and did not treat patients in accordance with the practice of osteopathy, they would be justified in convicting him, are without error.</p>