Kevin E. O'Duffy v Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Ltd Same v S. Jaffe Same v M. L. Jaffe

JurisdictionIreland
Judgment Date20 November 1903
Date20 November 1903
CourtKing's Bench Division (Ireland)
Kevin E. O'Duffy
and
Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Ltd.
Same
and
S. Jaffe.
Same
and
M. L. Jaffe (1).

K. B. Div.

CASES

DETERMINED BY

THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION

OF

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND,

AND ON APPEAL THEREFROM IN

THE COURT OF APPEAL,

AND BY

THE COURT FOR CROWN CASES RESERVED.

1904.

Dentist — Registration — Talcing or using the name — Person — Company — Dentists Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict c. 33) — Interpretation Act (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63).

The word “person” in the Dentists Act, 1878, relates only to an individual, and does not embrace a corporation or company. A company, by assuming a name which includes the words “surgeon dentists,” does not become liable to a prosecution under the Act for using a name, title, addition, or description, implying that it is registered under the Act.

Cases stated by the magistrates at Limerick Petty Sessions in three prosecutions at the instance of Kevin E. O'Duffy against a corporation entitled “Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Limited,” and two individuals, S. Jaffe, and Marcus L. Jaffe.

The case stated in the first prosecution set out that at Limerick Petty Sessions on the 28th May, 1903, the defendants Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Limited, were charged with having on the 9th February, 27th April, and 15th May, 1903, at Limerick, taken and used the name, title, addition, or description of dentist and surgeon dentist, and the title or description of “The London and New York Dental Institute,” implying that the defendant company was specially qualified to practise dentistry, the defendant company not being duly qualified in that behalf according to law or entitled to use the names, titles, additions, or descriptions aforesaid. The charge was duly heard before the magistrates, and upon such hearing they ordered that the summons be dismissed, with £1 costs. It was proved on the part of the complainant that the defendants were a registered company under the companies acts, 1862 to 1900, with a capital of £500, divided into 500 shares of £1 each, and registered on the 10th November, 1900. the memorandum of association, dated 5th November, 1900, set forth—(a) name of the company, jaffe, surgeon dentists, limited; (b) registered office of the company will be in Ireland; (c) objects of

Company—to carry on the business of dentists and dental surgeons in such parts of the United Kingdom as the directors shall from time to time appoint, and, in particular, Limerick, Clonmel, &c.; (d) the following comprise the aforesaid Company—Benjamin Jaffe, 64, Colooney-street, Limerick, draper, 1 share; Edith Jaffe, same address, spinster, 1 share; Marcus L. Jaffe, 31, Westland-street, Limerick, dental mechanic, 1 share; Bertha W. Stein, 27, Westland-street, Limerick, married woman, 165 shares; William Stein, same address, draper, 1 share; Leah Jaffe, same address, married woman, 165 shares; Rachel Jaffe, 35, Catherine-street, Limerick, married woman, 165 shares; Celia Phillips, 67, Bridge-street, Leeds, married woman, 1 share. The directors were Lionel Jaffe, Mayer William Stein, and Benjamin Jaffe.

The office of the Company was in Cecil-street, Limerick, having over the door the inscription “Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Limited,” and on a brass plate at the right-hand side of the door, “London and New York Dental Institute, conducted under the supervision of Messrs. Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Limited.” The complainant proved the publication of an advertisement in the Limerick Leader newspaper of February 9 and May 15, 1903, in the name of Jaffe, Surgeon Dentists, Cecil-street, Limerick. Neither the Company nor the directors were registered in accordance with section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 33). Evidence was given by G. J. O'Callaghan, who on 27th or 28th April, 1903, went to the house 43, Cecil-street, Limerick, which had the foregoing inscriptions on the door, accompanied by his daughter. In a room upstairs he saw a man, and asked him if he was the dentist. This man replied that he was. O'Callaghan having explained that the girl was suffering from a bad tooth, the man took her to the surgery (an inner room), placed her in a chair and extracted the tooth. O'Callaghan paid him 2s. 6d., for which he gave a receipt signed “S. Jaffe.”

The magistrates further stated that it was contended before them by Mr. Samuels, K.C., on the part of the complainant, that the defendant company was formed for the purposes of evading the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1878. The word “person” in section 3 only applied to an individual, if read by itself, but in the year 1889 the Interpretation Act (52 & 53 Vict. c. 63) was passed, and should be read with the former Act. Section 2, sub-section 1, there defined that the expression “person” should include a body corporate, unless the contrary appeared, and, consequently, as nothing appeared in the Dentists Act to specifically show the “contrary intention,” the defendant company should be construed as a person within the meaning of the Dentists Act, and they should be convicted as having taken and used the title of dentists, implying thereby that they were registered under the Dentists Act, and that they were a “person” specially qualified to practise dentistry, when not so registered. In answer to this Mr. Healy, K.C., with whom were Messrs. Doyle and Cullinan, argued that, as only a natural person could be registered or pass an examination, the Act did not apply to a corporation. The Interpretation Act did not, and could not, refer to the Dentists Act, as the “contrary intention” mentioned in section 2, sub-section 1, was apparent by implication in numerous sections, viz. no corporate body could pass an examination or be registered, or be a licentiate in surgery, or serve on juries, inquests, corporate or parochial offices, or serve in the militia, or die. The Act only applied, and was only intended to apply, to a natural person, and not to a corporate body. (Sections 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 30, 36, and 37.)

The magistrates were of opinion that the “contrary intention,” as expressed in section 2, sub-section 1, of the Interpretation Act, did appear in the Dentists Act, 1878, and that the Act only applied to a natural person, and not to a body corporate. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

The question for the Court was, whether the magistrates were correct in point of law in this determination, or as to what should be done in the premises.

In the separate complaints by the same complainant, charging S. Jaffe and Marcus L. Jaffe individually with the same offence, the magistrates being of opinion that these defendants did not personally take or use the word “dentist,” or any other term implying that they were registered, dismissed the two complaints, with £1 costs in each case. These two complaints were the subjects of the separate cases stated, which were heard simultaneously with the original case.

Gerald Fitz Gibbon (with him Ronan, K.C., and Samuels, K.C.), for the complainant:—

The question is, whether the word “person” in section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1878, includes body corporate. There is no express interpretation of the word “person” in the Dentists Act, but prima facie the word “person” includes body corporate, and by the Interpretation Act, 1889, section 2, it must bear this meaning unless the contrary intention appears. The House of Lords having held in The Pharmaceutical Society v. The Provincial Supply Association (1) that the general context of the Pharmacy Act...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • The King (Cottingham) v Justices of County Cork
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 9 May 1906
    ...(1) [1903] 2 I. R. 440. (2) 16 C. B.(N. S.) 584. (3) 14 Times L. R. 357. (4) 59 J. P. 87. (5) 66 J. P. 216. (6) 5 App. Cas. 857. (7) [1904] 2 I. R. 27, (8) 14 W. R. 28. (9) [1897] 2 I. R. 559. (1) [1899] 1 Q. B. 7. (2) [1901] 2 I. R. 497. (3) [1894] 1 Q. B. 133. (4) [1904] A. C. 423. ...
  • The King (at the prosecution of Andrew King) v The Chairman and Justices of Antrim
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 15 January 1906
    ...p. 592. (4) 7 B. & C. at p. 331. (5) 7 E. & B. 453. (1) 4 A. C. 30. (1) 5 A. C. 857. (2) [1901] 2 K. B. 560. (3) [1902] 2 K. B. 1. (4) [1904] 2 I. R. 27. (5) 5 Q. B. D. at p. (1) 5 A. C. 870, 571. (2) 7 B. & C. 331. ...
  • Re Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act; ex parte Lane and Others
    • Ireland
    • Chancery Division (Ireland)
    • 5 December 1906
    ...But, under the circumstances, I think it is a case in which the petitioners must pay all the costs of the petition. W. M'G. (1) [1904] 2 I. R. 27. (1) 21 L. R. Ir. 371. (2) 1 Dru. & W. 20. (3) LI. & G. temp. Plunk. 392-405. (4) I. R. 9 Eq. 149. (5) 4 Dr. & W. 240. (6) 5 Dow's Rep. 1. (7) 1 ......
  • The King (Rowell) v The Registrar of Joint Stock Companies for Ireland
    • Ireland
    • King's Bench Division (Ireland)
    • 20 April 1904
    ...... — Refusal to register — Mandamus — Dentists Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 33) — Companies ..., and Bridget Rowell, married woman, of the same address. In the notice of the situation of the ... an apprenticeship of seven years to surgeon dentists in London; that in November, 1903, he ... Joint Stock Companies for Ireland, and on Kevin E. O'Duffy, Esq., Hon. Sec. of the Irish Branch ...Jaffe (1) that this Company is entitled to be ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT