CHRISTIAN SCIENCE. In Pennsylvania a charter was refused to an organization of Christian Scientists on the ground that to recognize their doctrines was against the public policy of the state; In re First Church of Christ, Scientist, 205 Pa. 543, 55 Atl. 536, 63 L. R. A. 411, 97 Am. St. Rep. 753; but in Illinois they have been incorporated; Peo ple v. Gordon, 194 Ill. 560, 62 N. E. 858, 88 Am. St. Rep. 165.
The consent of a patient to be treated by a Christian Scientist healer will preclude holding him liable in damages for failure to effect a cure, although that method of treat ment is illegal by state law; Spead v. Tom linson, 73 N. H. 46, 59 Atl. 376, 68 L. R. A. 432. In Maine, a Christian Scientist was held entitled to recover for his services. The defense set up that it was delusion and charlatanry being considered immaterial, as defendant had chosen the treatment and promised to pay for it; Wheeler v. Sawyer (Me.) 15 AU. 67.
While the practice of Christian Science is not a practice of medicine as usually and generally understood, yet being a treatment for mental and bodily ailments, such prac tice is a violation of the state laws for the protection of the public health ; State v. Buswell, 40 Neb. 158, 58 N. W. 728, 24 L. R. A. 68; contra, State v. Mylod, 20 R. I.
632, 40 AU. 753, 41 L. R. A. 428. It has been held that to give treatments for a fee is practicing medicine; State v. Marble, 72 Ohio St. 21, 73 N. E. 1063, 70 L. R. A. 835, 106 Am. St. Rep. 570, 2 Ann. Cas. 898, where an act regulating such practice is consid ered a valid exercise of the police power and not void as discriminating against Christian Science in not. making special pro vision for those who wish to practice it.
Under a municipal ordinance imposing a penalty on physicians for not reporting con tagious diseases, the evidence must show that a Christian Scientist who attended the person knew that he was afflicted with such disease; Kansas City v. Baird, 92 Mo. App. 204.
A belief in Christian Science, ascribing to it certain miraculous powers of curing dis ease, is not sufficient evidence of insane de lusions to avoid a will; In re Brush, 35 Misc. 689, 72 N. Y. Supp. 421.
A conviction of a father for wilfully omit ting, without lawful excuse, to furnish med ical attendance for his minor son, was up held; Owens v. State, 6 Old. Cr. 110, 116 Pac. 345, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 633, Ann. Cas. 1913B, 1218.
See an article in 10 Va. L. Reg. 285.