STANDING OF VET.

Evening Star, Issue 19785, 8 February 1928, Page 9

STANDING OF VET.

A COURT CASE [Pe« United Press Association.] WHANGAREI, February 7. What the magistrate described as a matter of some importance was a question Mr F. H. Levicn, S.M., was asked to decide in the Magistrate’s Court today. Hugh Scully was that on or about January 25, not being a registered veterinary surgeon, he did use the description “ Veterinary and stock specialist” in connection with his calling in a manner that might reasonably cause any person to believe that he was a registered veterinary surgeon. Defendant pleaded not guilty. A currier gave evidence tlial_ as the result of sQi'ing Scully's advertisement in a newspaper and also a business card lie had twice called on defendant with satisfactory results. Detective Robinson said he had questioned defendant regarding the wording of the advertisement, receiving the reply that it was prepared by ids employers, The Ring Proprietary. Defendant said that ho had practised us a veterinarian tor the past twenty-five years, with the exception of eleven months, which he had spent in Australia for health reasons. The new Veterinary Act came into force in the latter part of 1926, and in 1927 he applied for registration in accordance with the Act, which made provision for any person rvho had practised for ten years prior to the Act coming into force to be registered. The Minister had replied that ho was still a veterinarian in good standing until rejected by the department. .1 u October of the same year ho had had a further letter from the department advising, him that it was to be regretted the application must be disallowed, as ho had broken the continuity of tbe period of practice, lie still had the right, however, to practise and charge fees, but must not call himself a veterinary surgeon, practitioner, or a veterinarian. Since then be had not called himself by any of these titles. The bench referred to the advertisement mentioned, which read:—“ H. Scally, representing Rings Proprietary, veterinary practitioners, 11 and asked the detective how the charge could succeed, as it was the proprietary and not the defendant which was represented as veterinary practitioners. As far as Scally w r as concerned it might, of course, be a neat, subterfuge to overcome the provisions of the statute, but the defendant , was undoubtedly, nob holding himself out as a veterinary practitioner. It was intimated that a decision would be given later.