As to whether a physician may contradict his patient to prevent fraud, see infra, p. 111 et seq.
[267] Supra, p. 97.
[268] Infra, p. 119.
[269] “Physician: A person who has received the degree of doctor of medicine from an incorporated institution; one lawfully engaged in the practice of medicine.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 412.
“Surgeon: One who applies the principles of the healing art to external diseases or injuries, or to internal injuries or malformations, requiring manual or instrumental intervention. One who practises surgery.”—Bouvier’s Law Dict., vol. ii., p. 698, q. v.
[270] Edington v. Mutual L. I. Co., 5 Hun, 1.
[271] People v. Stout, 3. Park Cr. Rep., 670 (1858). In this case the witness was undoubtedly a duly qualified physician under the State law.
[272] Wiel v. Cowles, 45 Hun, 307 (1887) (Supreme Ct., Gen. T.). Sec. 356, N. Y. Penal Code, which was in operation at that time, was repealed by Act 1887, c. 647, s. 9, but the prohibition of unauthorized practice is now to be found in Act 1893, c. 661, s. 140.
[273] Kendall v. Gray, 2 Hilt., 300 (N. Y. Com. Pl., Gen. T., 1859).
[274] Brown v. Hannibal & St. J. R. R. Co., 66 Mo., 588.