A VETERINARY PRACTITIONER

Hokitika Guardian, 9 February 1928, Page 2

A VETERINARY PRACTITIONER

WIIANCIAItKI. I-’-b. 7

Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., was asked to decide an interesting question in the AjjagUtratjeV, lUourti to-day. Hugh Scally was charged that on or about January 25th, not being a registered veterinary surgeon, he did use the description •‘veterinary ami stock specialist " in connection with his calling, in the manner that might reasonably cause any person to lielieve that lie was a a registered veterinary surgeon. Defendant pleaded not guilty. A carrier gave evidence that as the result of seeing Scully's adveitisement in a newspaper, and also a business card, he had twice called on defendant with .satisfactory results. Detective Robinson said lie had questioned defendant regarding the wording of the advertisement, relieving the reply that it was prepared by his employers, the Rink Proprietory. Defendant deposed that he had practised as a veterinarian for twentyfive years and more, with the exception of eleven months which he had spent in Australia for health reasons. The new Veterinary Aet came into force in the latter part of and in 1927 he applied for registration in accordance with the Act, which allowed any person who had practsod for ten years prior to the Act coming into force. The Minister had replied that he was .still a veterinarian in good standing until rejected by the Department. In October of the same year he had had a further letter from the Department advsing him that it was regretted that the application must Ik- disallowed as he had broken the continuity of the jx?riod of practice. He still had the right, however, to practise and charge fees, but must not call himself a veterinary surgeon, practitioner, or a veterinarian. Since then he had not called himself by any of these titles. The Bench referred to the advertisement mentioned which read: “H. Scally. representing Ring’s Proprietary. veterinary practitioners.” and asked the detective how the charge could succeed, as it was the proprietary and not defendant, which was represented as “veterinary pra'ti Goners.’’ As far as Scally was concerned it might, of course, be a neat subterfuge to overcome the provisions of the statute., but the defendant was un-

doubtedlv not holding himself out as a veterinary practitioner. It was intimated that a decision would be given later.