1861. v. General vits, in answer to an offer by the chairman to hear any The QUEEN explanation, Mr. Organ and his attorney again protested, and declined to interfere. The council on the following day, 19th June, 1860, passed the following EDUCATION resolutions, and forwarded copies of them to Mr. Organ. Council of MEDICAL "That, it having been proved to the satisfaction of the general council that the entry of the name of Richard Organ has been fraudulently and incorrectly made on the register, the general council do by this order in writing direct that his name be erased from the register; that Richard Organ having been judged by the general council, after due inquiry, to have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect, the general council do hereby adjudge that the name of the said Richard Organ be erased from the register, and do by this order direct the registrar to erase his name from the register accordingly." Montague Smith and Sleigh now shewed cause. The council had jurisdiction to order Mr. Organ's name to be erased from the register, upon both or one or other of the grounds stated in the resolutions of 19th June. The Medical Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90. enacts, by sect. 15, that "Every person now possessed, and (subject to the provisions hereinafter contained) every person hereafter becoming possessed, of any one or more of the qualifications described in the Schedule (A.) to this Act, shall, on payment of a fee, not exceeding 21., in respect of qualifications obtained before the 1st day of January, 1859, and not exceeding 51. in respect of qualifications obtained on or after that day, be entitled to be registered on producing to the registrar of the branch council for England, Scotland, or Ireland, the document conferring 1861. V. General Council of MEDICAL or evidencing the qualification or each of the qualifica- The QUEEN tions in respect whereof he seeks to be so registered, or upon transmitting by post to such registrar information of his name and address, and evidence of the qualification EDUCATION. or qualifications in respect whereof he seeks to be registered, and of the time or times at which the same was or were respectively obtained." By sect. 17, "Any person who was actually practising medicine in England before the 1st day of August, 1815, shall, on payment of a fee to be fixed by the general council, be entitled to be registered on producing to the registrar of the branch council for England, Scotland, or Ireland, a declaration according to the form in the Schedule (B.) to this Act signed by him, or upon transmitting to such registrar information of his name and address, and enclosing such declaration as aforesaid." These being the provisions under which medical practitioners in general may get themselves put on the medical register, the Act, by sect. 46, enacts that "It shall be lawful for the general council, by special orders, to dispense with such provisions of this Act or with such part of any regulations made by its authority as to them shall seem fit, in favour of," amongst others, "any persons who" "are acting as surgeons in the public service." Mr. Organ, it appears, obtained registration under this latter section, on his statement that he was a surgeon in the public service. Such being the provisions of the Act as to registration, and such the mode by which Mr. Organ got on the register, the question is whether the Council of Medical Education can justify his removal therefrom, under the powers conferred on them by other sections. Those sections are the 26th and the 29th. By sect. 26 it is 1861. V. General Council of MEDICAL enacted that "No qualification shall be entered on the The QUEEN register, either on the first registration or by way of addition to a registered name, unless the registrar be satisfied by the proper evidence that the person claiming EDUCATION. is entitled to it; and any appeal from the decision of the registrar may be decided by the general council, or by the council for England, Scotland, or Ireland (as the case may be); and any entry which shall be proved to the satisfaction of such general council or branch council to have been fraudulently or incorrectly made may be erased from the register by order in writing of such general council or branch council." And sect. 29 enacts that "If any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted in England or Ireland of any felony or misdemeanour, or in Scotland of any crime or offence, or shall after due inquiry be judged by the general council to have been guilty of infamous conduct in any profes sional respect, the general council may, if they see fit, direct the registrar to erase the name of such medical practitioner from the register." The council were justified, under either of these sections, in removing Mr. Organ's name from the register. It having been proved to their satisfaction that the entry of his name on the register had been fraudulently and incorrectly made, sect. 26 applies; as does sect. 29, the council having, after due inquiry, judged Mr. Organ to have been guilty of infamous conduct in a professional respect. The other side will contend that, in order for sect. 29 to apply, it must be proved that the infamous professional conduct, there mentioned, occurred before the name was put on the register. But that section is not to be thus restricted in its operation. It provides for the erasure of a practitioner's name, if he shall be 1861. The QUEEN V. General Council of MEDICAL judged "to have been" guilty of the infamous conduct; by which must be meant, to have been thus guilty at any time before the adjudication. [Crompton J. That would seem to be the reasonable construction, having regard to the enactment in sect. 15, under which it EDUCATION. appears that any duly qualified person is entitled to be registered, without regard to his character, if he pays the proper fee and produces to the registrar sufficient evidence of his qualification.] Yes: it was necessary to give power to the council, by sect. 29, to remove the names of persons of infamous professional character; who, being entitled in the first instance to registration, could not otherwise be erased from the register. Whether or not, however, the council can justify their proceeding under sect. 29, they clearly can do so under sect. 26: which must give them power to expunge from the register any name, however it got there, the entry of which was fraudulent or incorrect. Hayes Serjt., in support of the rule.-First, as to sect. 29. The expression "infamous conduct in any professional respect," is very vague; and the council ought to find proved some definite instance of such misconduct on the part of a practitioner, before taking the extreme course of striking his name off the register. Assuming, however, that they are not bound to find him guilty of any precise misconduct, they must, at all events, find that he was guilty of the misconduct imputed to him before he was registered. Sect. 15 gives an absolute right to every qualified person to be placed on the register; and it would be strange if a subsequent section should give the council the power of nullifying that right by striking such a person off on account of 1861. V. General Council of MEDICAL conduct by him before he was put on. Sect. 29 applies The QUEEN to "any registered medical practitioner" only; by which must be meant any medical practitioner who after registration incurs the pains and penalties of the section. The EDUCATION. Subsequent words "judged" "to have been guilty," merely mean that the guilt must be complete at the time of adjudication; not that it may have taken place at any time before then. This clause of the section ought not to receive a different construction from its first clause, by which, "If any registered medical practitioner shall be convicted" "of any felony or misdemeanour," his name may be erased. That clause plainly applies only to a conviction after registration, and also, it must reasonably be supposed, to a conviction for an offence committed since the offender's registration. Otherwise, there is this anomaly, that guilt, followed by conviction before the offender's registration, does not disqualify him, once registered, from remaining on the register; but the same guilt, if not followed by conviction until after the registration, does disqualify him. The general rule in interpreting statutes, that they are not to be construed retrospectively, ought to prevail here; especially as the Act takes away or restricts pre-existing rights. Secondly, sect. 26 applies only to the erasure of names improperly put upon the register by the registrar, and to appeals from his decision to that of the council. The council cannot, therefore, justify under that section the erasure of Mr. Organ's name, he having been put on the register, not by the registrar, but by special order of the council under sect. 46. [Hill J. The first clause of sect. 26 no doubt has the limited application, only, for which you contend; but its second clause, under which the council have acted in this case, autho |