HOMfEOPATHY CONDEMNED BY THE LAW.
Marine. Court.—Before Judge Lynch. Homeopathy.
E. Rossi Corsi v. Max Maretzek.—To recover $100, balance for
services as singer at the Opera House, the defence to which was that
plaintiff had incurred a forfeiture of $100 by not performing, or person-
ally giving notice of illness, under certificate of the Doctor of the Opera
House, on February 23, agreeable to the regulations already referred
to. The decision in this case as to Homoeopathic physicians having
been somewhat misunderstood, we give the portion of the opinion
which refers to it.
“ The Court, after stating that it was shown by physician of plaintiff,
and who it is said was proved to be a regular M. D., that plaintiff was
unable that night to perform, and expressing its concurrence in the view
that at such an establishment as the Opera House, strict discipline should
be maintained, and the penalties upheld, says: ‘But I feel bound to
regard the rule of evidence which requires in cases of penalty and for-
feiture, strict proof of its being incurred—the objection to the evidence
of the attending physician is technical and strict, and before defendant
can avail himself of it, he must show that he has fully complied with
what was to be done on his part. The rule stuck up at the Opera
House is in these words : ‘ Sickness must be proved by the doctor em-
ployed by the director.’ Now, though it is proven there was a notice
posted up in the Opera House that Dr. Quinn was employed by the
director, yet it has not been proved on this tried that Dr. Quinn was a
doctor, or that he had taken a degree as Doctor of Medicine, or that he
was authorized by the Medical Society, or had a regular license to prac-
tice, which I think was necessary in order to constitute him a doctor, and
to show a regular appointment under the rule, and which I do not feel
at liberty in such cases to supply by inference. So far as there is evi-
dence on the subject, it went to show that Dr. Quinn practiced upon
principles of homoeopathy, and that such practitioners are not recognized
by the faculty of medicine, nor by a majority of the public, as regular
practitioners. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that plain-
tiff was authorized to make proof of his sickness by his attending phy-
sician ; and as such proof was made to my satisfaction, I think the
plaintiff is not subject to the fine, and give judgment in his favor for
$100, the amount.’ ”