« AnteriorContinuar »
Brown versus Panhaus.
SUMMONS heard at Bow Street Police Court, before Mr. Marsham, on August 16, 1902.
Mr. Turner for the complainant; Mr. Arthur Newton for the defendant. Mr. TURNER: The circumstances under which this case comes before you are a little peculiar. It is a prosecution instituted at the instance of the British Dental Association against the defendant, who is practising at 60, Gower Street. He is either a German or an Austrian, and he has been some little while in England. On his name plate were the words, "John Panhaus, dentist, Zahnarzt," which is the German for Surgeon Dentist or Doctor of Dentistry. “Dentist" is in English, which was an infringement of Section 3 of the Dentists Act of 1878, as amended by the Medical Act of 1886. He had previously been practising some time in Tottenham Court Road, and thought he was entitled to use this word "dentist." Mr. Brown told him he was not entitled to, and that it was an infringement of the Act. Thereupon Mr. Newton, the defendant's solicitor, wrote a very proper letter under the circumstances, offering to remove the plate and asking for the summons to be withdrawn. Unfortunately the Association have not felt that they can let the matter drop, because enquiries have been made and it appears that in December last he made an application to become registered, and that application was not acceded to. Further than that, the defendant had since put up a sign bearing the words, "Zahn-âtelier Deutsches ❞—German mechanical dentist. It is only fair to say that he has written a further letter showing some certificate entitling him to practise dentistry in Austria.
WILLIAM FLETCHER THOMAS BROWN, clerk to Messrs. Bowman and Curtis Hayward, solicitors to the British Dental Association, then stated that, acting on instructions, on July 22 he went to 60, Gower Street, and saw a name plate bearing the words, "John Panhaus, dentist, Zahnarzt." He saw the defendant, and asked if it was his brass plate on the door. He said, "Yes," and that he was qualified in Austria to practise dentistry and was applying to the Medical Council to get put on the Register. He also stated that he had practised some time in Tottenham Court Road, and no one interfered with him there. Mr. Brown attended again on July 25, and then saw a name plate bearing the words, "Zahn-âtelier Deutsches."
Cross-examined by Mr. NEWTON: You pointed out to him that the word "dentist was an infringement of the statute?—Yes. He said that he did not know that? No, he did not say that.
Well, words to that effect. Did he say he thought he was entitled to practise under the authority from his own country?—Yes.
Do you say to the magistrate that that authority is not one of those which are included in the statute?-No.
You agree with me that, if you have a proper licence from the paramount authority in a foreign country, that that is one of the authorities or recognised certificates which are referred to in the Act?—One of the authorities which may be considered by the Council.
You agree with me that this is one of those authorities on which he may be registered?—I cannot say that.
You say you made enquiries at the General Council?—Yes.
Did you ascertain that the reason why the application in December was not granted was that the defendant was unable at that moment to produce the original certificate from Austria-Hungary?—No, the defendant did not tell me that. He said his papers were not perfect.
This "German Mechanical Dentist." You don't make any objection to a man putting up that sign if he only makes teeth?-Certainly.
Mr. NEWTON: A man need not be registered to make or sell teeth. This
sir, is a somewhat exceptional case, and I had hoped that the Association would not have thought it necessary to bring the summons before you. As you are aware, under the statute very great stress is laid in two different sections with regard to the class of man against whom the statute is aimed, and, sir, it provides, amongst other things, as you know, that should it appear that a man is a man of excellent character and his qualifications are right, he shall be able to register under certain circumstances. There is no question that the defendant is a man of the highest character in every sense of the word, as appears from the statements of those who know him in this country. This gentleman obtained in the year 1895 in Austria-Hungary, of which he is a native, a proper certificate from the authorities that he is a person entitled to practise as a dental practitioner. I will read to you a letter from Dr. Harrer, physician to the Austria-Hungarian Embassy, who is exceedingly well known in this country.
Mr. TURNER: I do not wish to appear to take too technical objections. I could not very well have put that letter in, but I should like to point out one or two matters in reference to this certificate. I do not know what the nature of the certificate is that he has.
Mr. NEWTON: "Mr. John Panhaus, of 60, Gower Street, has laid before me a copy of an official document," says Dr. Harrer, "the original being with the Austria-Hungarian Consul-General in London, saying that in 1895 he had received from the municipal authorities in Kecskemet, Hungary, the legal sanction to practise as a surgeon-dentist, which profession he has carried on in that place for some considerable time. As that sanction in Austria-Hungary is only granted if the person in question produces a certificate of qualification for six years' standing, and as Mr. John Panhaus is well known to the Austria-Hungarian Consul-General in London as a respectable, honest and trustworthy gentleman, I do not hesitate to recommend him for registration in London." Mr. Pretty also certifies: "I have known John Panhaus for two years as a highly respectable practitioner of the highest skill and reputation." The certificate in question is this: "From the Government Offices of the municipal town of Kecskemet. It is hereby certified that John Panhaus was granted a license on the 3rd of May, 1895, as a Dental Practitioner. July 31st, 1902." On that I would point this out to you. You have before you a man who is entitled and who will receive the highest possible consideration for the honourable life he has hitherto led. Under Section 9, "where a person who is not a British subject or who has practised for more than ten years elsewhere than in the United Kingdom "—and you have the fact that prior to 1895 the defendant had been six years in practice at Austria-Hungary-therefore he will be a man who is contemplated to be entitled to certain indulgences under Section 9 of the Statute. It is fourteen years since he began to practise, and he has practised ten years out of the United Kingdom.
Mr. TURNER: He would come in under the first section.
Mr. NEWTON: That being the position, it is quite obvious, as I shall show you, that my client is a person who would be entitled to be registered as a dentist under Section 10. Because that says, this is the explaining part: "The certificate which is to be deemed the necessary certificate, shall be such certificate, diploma, membership, degree, licence-which is ours. I shall show you the defendant is a person of excellent good character, a man of skill and ability, and who has obtained from a foreign Government some years ago such a certificate as shows that he is entitled to be registered in this country. You have heard by the letter I have just read that he is a person who holds a certificate that he is a proper person to practise in 1895, and who was in practice six years before that. The information which Mr. Brown has obtained, no doubt from enquiries, is incorrect. Because Mr. Brown says that the only information he got was that the reason that the defendant's application for registration was not granted was because his papers were incomplete. Therefore, my friend says that, that being so, he felt obliged to come here and ask for a decision.
Mr. TURNER: I did not say that.
Mr. NEWTON: That was one of his reasons why he could not agree to let this summons drop. What really has happened is this: in December, Mr. Panhaus sent in an application for registration. At that time, although he had been duly granted a license he had not got an official copy, or in fact any copy of it at that time, and, therefore, he was unable to give any proof beyond the mere statement of a man who was unknown to the Council. Since then he has been out himself and has brought over from Austria-Hungary his official certificate. He has now, sir, immediately he got it, sent a copy to the General Medical Council.
Mr. MARSHAM : That is quite recently, I suppose?
Mr. NEWTON: The Council replied on the 11th inst., saying the matter should have attention. I venture to submit that, if you are satisfied with regard to that, I hope you will take the view that I endeavoured to suggest to the persons who instruct my learned friend. Is it not one of those cases which are on the border line and where a man has made a genuine mistake?
Mr. MARSHAM: He has been before the Council and they refused to register him.
Mr. NEWTON: He had not got his certificate then. I would ask you, sir, after you have heard him, whether this is not one of those cases which might very well be adjourned for-—
Mr. MARSHAM : Oh, no.
Mr. NEWTON: If you come to the conclusion that an offence has been committed, I hope you will not brand the defendant as a man who has wilfully offended against the Act.
Mr. MARSHAM: Has he to apply personally for his certificate ?
go and get it himself.
He has to
The defendant then went into the witness box and was sworn.
And have you for the last two or three years in London been practising dentistry and the manufacture of teeth? Yes.
In 1895 did you obtain from the town of Kecskemet in Austria-Hungary a certificate or licence authorising you to practise as a dental practitioner? I did.
Before such licence can be obtained in that country is it necessary for the applicant to satisfy the authorities that he has been practising in dentistry for some six years prior to that? Yes.
Did you satisfy the authorities to that effect, and was the certificate granted to you? Yes.
On the 31st of July last month, did you go out to Kecskemet and obtain from the municipal authority there this official copy certificate which you now produce? I did.
You also obtained letters from Dr. Harrer, Physician to the AustriaHungarian Embassy and from Messrs. Pretty? Yes.
As a fact are you a native of Austria-Hungary? I am.
In December last did you make an application to the General Council of Medical Education to be registered under the Dentists Act? Yes.
At that time had you any official copy of any kind of that licence with you? No.
Is it necessary for you to go yourself and get it? Yes; I went purposely last month and obtained this certificate.
When Mr. Brown called your attention to this plate were you aware that you were doing anything against the law? No.
What did you? I immediately took it down.
Cross-examined by Mr. TURNER: As soon as you took the plate down you put up another bearing the words "Zahn-atelier Deutsches"? Yes. Does that mean mechanical dentist? It means teeth working-room.
Teeth working room means a place where you receive people and see to their teeth? No, sir.
Does it only mean that you manufacture teeth and sell them? ever made an artificial tooth? Thousands.
Do not you generally buy artificial teeth to mount? Yes; I buy them to
Does that sign mean only to do mechanical work? Yes.
I think you merely put it up because you could not put the other word up; just to let people believe that if they came there you could see to them and see to their teeth? Yes.
Are you entitled to go for a certificate if you have been practising dentistry for six years? Yes.
In order to get this certificate you have referred to you have to practise for six years. Before you can practise at all must you do anything? I have to go three years to a medical man.
Have you to go to a hospital? No; I have not.
Have you to pass any examination in physiology? No; I have not.
Dental surgery and dental anatomy? In dental surgery I have to.
Not dental anatomy? No.
What are the people who examine you in making teeth and pulling teeth out? Who examines you? The police.
Oh! The police! Well I think I may leave it at that.
Re-examined by Mr. NEWTON: My friend is trying to make a joke out of it the same as most people do who are not acquainted with the Continent. You have to be apprenticed six years before you can obtain this certificate? Yes.
After your apprenticeship you serve three years to a technical dentist, and afterwards three years to a medical man so that you can have a knowledge not only of the technical dentistry, but also of the medical questions that arise? Yes.
After the expiration of that six years did you go before the principal municipal authority of the town of Kecskemet, in Austria-Hungary? Yes.
Did you satisfy them that you had carried out these requirements? Yes. Mr. MARSHAM: Did not you think it necessary to go there before? No. Mr. TURNER: I would like to point out that in Austria-Hungary a man is not required to go through the hospital curriculum. I am pretty certain the Council will refuse to register this man.
Mr. NEWTON: It will occur to anyone that if you have the advantage of being a private pupil is not that worth more than walking in a hospital. Mr. TURNER: Everybody ought to qualify in the same way.
Mr. MARSHAM: When the Council refused to register the defendant he still continued to put up the sign "Dentist."
Mr. NEWTON: Only for five weeks.
Mr. MARSHAM: I fine him £5, and he must pay £3 35. costs.
NOTE.-ANONYMOUS Letters directed to the Secretary of the Association cannot receive attention.
P.O. Orders must be accompanied by Letters of Advice.
Communications intended for the Editor should be addressed to him at 94, Cornwall Gardens, London, S.W.
Subscriptions to the Treasurer, 32, Leicester Square.
Subscriptions to the Benevolent Fund to the Treasurer, A. J. Woodhouse, Esq., I, Hanover Square, W.
All contributions intended for publication in the Journal must be written on The latest date for receiving contributions for
one side of the paper only
the current number is the 5th of the month.
SPECIAL NOTICE.-Communications for the Editor should directed to 94, Cornwall Gardens, London, S. W.
Journal of the
British Dental Association
OCTOBER 15, 1902.
Alveolar Pyorrhoea-its Pathological Anatomy and its Radical Treatment.
BY N. N. ZNAMENSKY, DC.PR., M.D.
PROFESSOR OF MOSCOW UNIVERSITY.
In every branch of medical knowledge there always exist certain pathological conditions whose etiology, anatomy, pathological changes, and, finally, the treatment itself, have not been hitherto sufficiently cultivated, and therefore they are constantly serving as fields for further investigations.
In odontology, to these not fully disclosed processes belongs the so-called alveolar pyorrhoea (pyorrhoea alveolaris), which leads to a progressive destruction of tooth sockets (alveoli) and to the loosening and falling out of quite sound teeth. It is not up to the present time settled whether it be a local process, or whether it exists in connection with some constitutional complaint. Whence does this process arise, and what pathologic-anatomical substratum lies at its basis?
It is quite evident that if you do not know your enemy well you cannot successfully contend with him. And really, till recently, this process was looked upon as incurable, and teeth affected with it were prematurely doomed to the forceps. But at present, in Germany, there exists quite a commission of medical men seeking for a definition of the nature of this disease, in order to strive more favourably with Concerning its anatomo-pathology there still exist different