Page:Medical jurisprudence (IA medicaljurisprud03pari).pdf/349

 William Rose,                     Plaintiff    } ¡n The College of Physicians, London, Defendants   } Error  15^{th} March, 1703.

In the 10^{th} year of Hen. 8. the defendants were incorporated; and, in the letters patent granted for that purpose, which were confirmed by stat. 14 and 15 Hen. 8. c. 5. is, inter alia, the following clause: "Concessimus, etiam eisdem præsidenti et collegio, seu communitati, et successoribus suis, quod nemo in dicta civitate, aut per septem milliaria in circuitu ejusdem, exerceat dictum facultatem, nisi ad hoc perdict, præsidentem et communitutem, seu successores eorum qui pro tempore fuerint, admissus sit per ejudem præsidents et collegii literas sigillo suo communi sigillatas, sub pœna centum solidorum pro quolibet mense, quo non admissus eandem facultatem exercit, dimidium inde nobis et hæred. nostris, et dimidium dicto præsidenti et coll. applicandum." The plaintiff, who was an apothecary, and freeman of London, attended one Seale, a butcher, in the parish of Saint Martin in the Fields, and made up and administered proper medicines to him; but, without any licence from the faculty, and also without the direction of any physician, and without taking or demanding any fee for his advice. The defendants apprehending this conduct to be an infringement of their privileges, brought their action against the plaintiff, to recover the penalty of 5l. per month, under the above clause in their charter; and, on the trial, the jury found a special verdict, stating the charter, the confirmatory statute, and the facts of the case; and submitted to the Court, whether the defendant Rose did practice physic, within the intent of the letters patent and act of Parliament.—And, after this verdict had been three several times argued in the Court of Queen's Bench, the Judges were unanimously of opinion, that the facts found did amount