the Case of the City of London v. Vanacker, in 1 Ld. Raym. 496. where Holt Ch. J. said that "if the By-Law was for the Benefit of the City, it would be good."
This By-Law, therefore, is not good, without a particular Custom to support it: for it restrains a Common-Law Right.
The Return does not aver that the understanding the Latin Tongue is a necessary qualification of a Surgeon: And their Art may certainly be performed without it. At least, 'tis no objection to a young Person's being put out to learn the Art; whatever it might be to the Admission of a Man to practise it.
Besides, "Understanding the Latin Tongue," is a very indefinite and vague expression: And a very different idea of it would be conceived by different persons; as by Dr. Bentley (for instance) and by a[1] Warden of the Surgeons Company.
Bad consequences too, may arise from this By-Law: And if so, it shall not prevail. Godbolt 254. S. C. with that of the Taylors of Ipswich, (there called The Cloth-workers of Ipswich Case.)
If the By-Law is bad, this young man's not understanding Latin will not cure or help it. However, the By-Law does not expressly forbid such a Person to be admitted: It is not mandatory, but only directory.
Mr. Serjeant Hewit contra, was rising up, to speak in support of the Return,
But Lord Mansfield said it was too plain to argue.
Whereupon, Per Cur.
Return allowed.
- ↑ N. B. Mr. Nourse was in fact a very good Scholar.
