Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1 by R. A. Witthaus et al.

the protection due to it, according to the intention of the statute, any physician that possesses in fact an opinion that a patient has a contagious disease, is bound to report the case, _whether he has_ or _has not_ used ordinary professional skill and knowledge. A physician of skill in everything but cases of small-pox, which happily are not numerous, may, unexpectedly to himself, be called to a case which presents to him the appearance of small-pox. It may be said that he may call in counsel. It cannot, however, be said that private counsel should be called in rather than such as the law has appointed. Certainly, if he really thinks the case to be one of small-pox, it is his duty to communicate his opinion to the public authorities, who furnish skilled physicians peculiarly competent to pass upon the case. They are the experts the law points out for the physician. The attendance of these experts upon a patient can cause no injury, and thereafter the responsibility rests solely upon the public officer.” As to how far the decision of an inspector appointed by a board of health is regarded by the law as quasi-judicial, and therefore conclusive, see Underwood _v._ Green, 42 N. Y., 140; Raymond _v._ Fish, 51 Conn., 80. Health officers who were guilty of gross negligence in removing infected persons from a city in stormy weather, and putting them in an unprotected and unsafe structure, so that such persons died from the exposure, have been held liable. Aaron _v._ Broiles, 64 Tex., 316. The latest and most complete statute laws creating or regulating health boards are: England, 38 and 39 Victoria, chap. 55; United States (National Board of Health), 20 Stat. L., 484, suppl. to U. S. Rev. Stats., chap. 202, passed March 3d, 1889; Mass., chap. 79, Mass. Rev. Stats.; Pa., Laws of 1885, chap. 56; New York (State Board of Health), 2 N. Y. Rev. Stats., 1195; Local Boards, _id._, 1191-1193, chap. 270, Laws of 1885. The statutes of New Jersey are considered in Lozier _v._ Newark, 19 Vr., 453. In Missouri the power to license physicians is conferred upon the State Board of Health, and the Supreme Court of that State has held that the act of that board in granting or refusing a license is discretionary and its action in such a matter will not be enforced by a writ of _mandamus_ (State _v._ Gregory, 83 Mo., 123); and a similar doctrine prevails in Minnesota, State _v._ State Med. Board, 32 Minn., 324. The latest and best work on the general subject of the organization and powers of boards of health is Parker & Worthington’s “Public Health and Safety,” M. Bender, publisher, Albany, N. Y., 1892. [162] Consult, as to this, Parsons on “Contracts,” vol. ii., p. 56. [163] Of course in those States or countries in which statutes of fraud render void, contracts for personal services for a longer period than one year (or any period named in the statute), unless such contracts are in writing and duly signed, contracts should be drawn and entered into with regard to those statutes. [164] See also “Field’s Medico-Legal Guide,” 208-210, where the following cases are cited as sustaining this doctrine: New York, Carpenter _v._ Blake, 60 Barb., 488; same case on appeal, 75 N. Y. Court of Appeals, 12. Connecticut, Landon _v._ Humphrey, 9 Conn., 209. Iowa, Smothers _v._ Hawks, 34 Ia., 286. Indiana, Long _v._ Morrison, 14 Ind., 595. Maine, Leighton _v._ Sargeant, 27 Me. (7 Fost.), 468; Howard _v._ Grover, 28 Me., 97. Illinois, MacNevins _v._ Lowe, 40 Ill.,