Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/326

 college in writing, under their common seal; but he who shall be allowed to practise physic throughout England, out of London, ought to be examined and admitted by the president and three of the elects, and so they said, that it was lately adjudged in the King's Bench, in an information exhibited against the said Dr. Bonham for practising physic in London for divers months. As to the third point they said, that for his contempt and disobedience before them at their assembly in their college, they might well commit him to prison for they have authority by the letters patent and act of Parliament, and therefore for a contempt or misdemeanor before them they may commit him. Also the act of 1 M. has given them power to commit them for every offence or disob. contrary to any article or clause contained in the said grant or act. But there is an express negative article in the said grant, and ratif. by the act of 14 H. 8. ''Quod nemo in dictâ civitate, &c. exerceat, &c.'' and the defendants have pleaded, that the plaintiff had practised physic in London by the space of one month, &c. and therefore the act of 1 Mariæ has authorised them to imprison him in this case; wherefore they concluded against the plaintiff. But it was argued by Coke Chief Justice, Warburton and Daniel Justices of the Common Pleas, to the contrary. And Daniel Justice conceived, that a doctor of physic, of the one university or the other, &c. was not within the body of the act, and if he was within the body of the act, that he was excepted by the said latter clause; but Warburton argued against him for both the points; and the Chief Justice did not speak to those two points, because he and Warburton and Daniel agreed, that this action was clearly maintainable for two other points, and therefore in this action the Chief Justice omitted to speak to the said two points; but to two other points, he and the said two other Justices, Warburton and Daniel, did speak, sc. 1.