the evidence here shows nothing more. The distinction between the powers conferred on municipal corporations for public purposes and for the general public good, and those conferred for private corporate uses, is clearlv marked by the decisions.1'
MARRIAGE. -(INCESTUOUS CHARACTER— ANNUL MENT— PUBLIC POLICY.) WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS.
Martin v. Martin, 46 Southeastern Report er 1 20, was a bill filed to annul a marriage between complainant and defendant on the ground that, being related by blood as nephew and aunt they went to Pennsylvania to evade the law of West Virginia, in getting married, and with the intention of returning to the latter State to reside. This latter al legation as to the purpose to evade the West Virginia law was denied by the defendant. The parties had lived together eighteen years, and had a son ten years old. The lower court concluded that "a court of equity 'ought not to entertain a litigant who vaunted his own iniquity and made that his sole ground of the decree asked from it.1' In reversing the decree below rhe court says that, though the hands of the parties may be unclean, it is the duty of a court of equity to permit them to clean them when it can do so, and not permit such uncleanness to continue as a .stench in the nostrils of the people. W'hile the rule is that equity will not entertain persons with unclean hands, yet there are just exceptions thereto, and the statutes of this State have mercifully pro vided that those who unwittingly enter into a marriage that leads to the continual viola tion of law, notwithstanding their original sin, may have such relation annulled, so that they may go and sin no more. Such trans gressors should get from before the public gaze as quickly as possible. Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 18 Am. Rep. 509, and State v. Brown, 47 Ohio State 102. 23 Northeastern Reporter 747, 2i Am. St. Rep. 790 are cited.
MASSEUR. (PRACTICE OF MEDICINE—WHAT CON STITUTES.) NORTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT.
In State t'. Biggs, 46 Southeastern Re porter 401, the defendant appealed from a conviction of practising medicine and surg ery without a license. The jury found that he administered massage, baths, and physi cal culture, manipulated muscles and bones, and advised his patients what to eat,—all this without use of drugs. The North Carolina Code, section 3124, requires that applicants for license to prac tise medicine or surgery shall stand an ex amination in anatomy, physiology, and vari ous other branches. Laws, 1885, p. 180, ch. 117, §2 made guilty of a misdemeanor any one who "shall begin the practice oi medicine or surgery ... for tee or reward," without such license. Acts 1903, p. .1074. ch. 697, defines the ex pression, "practice of medicine and surgery," as meaning the management for fee or re ward of any cast1 of disease, physical or men tal, real or imaginary, with or without drugs, surgical operation, surgical or mechanical appliances or by any other method whatso ever." It is this last statute that is particularly assailed, and which the court declares to be unconstitutional as conferring a monopoly. The court says that it is forbidden to relieve a case of suffering, physical or mental, in any method unless one is an M. D. It is not even admissible to minister to a mind dis eased" in any method, or even dissipate an attack of the "blues," without that . label duly certified. It asks whether it is requisite that a man who treats a diseased ear should really be competent in obstetrics, or whether it is penal to trea.t a disease of the eye unless the operator understands chemistry, or whether it is ind'ctable to remove corns or to plug teeth without a full knowledge of the materia medica, or to apply a fomentation without being able to "pass up" on therapeu tics, or sell a little herb tea for the stomach ache without being scientifically versed in pathology and physiology. Christian Scientists are permitted to cure
