
    State vs. David Anthony.
    PROVIDENCE
    JULY 18, 1898.
    Prbseht: Mattesou, C. J., Stiness, Tillinghast, Wilbur, Rogers, Douglas, and Bosworth, JJ.
    The practice of “ Christian science” by one who has not complied with the provisions of Gen. Laws R. I. cap. 165, is not an unlawful practice of medicine ; and hence in a complaint against him thereunder he cannot attack the constitutionality of said chapter.
    Complaint charging the unlawful practice of medicine. Certified from a District Court and heard on constitutional questions.
    
      Charles F. Stearns, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
    
      Stephen O. Edwards, Walter F. Angelí, Seeber Edwards, and Albert Gerald, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The defendant, who is a Christian Scientist, was adjudged probably guilty by the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, of the unlawful practice of medicine, in violation of cap. 165, Gen. Laws R. I. The defendant claims that said cap. 165, so far as it relates to the-acts complained of, is in violation of Art. 1, § 3, Const. R. I. The evidence upon which he was adjudged guilty showed a practice of Christian science, and, substantially, was like that set forth in the opinion of the court in State v. Mylod, ante 632. The testimony fails to show any violation of said cap. 165. Said chapter does not relate to the acts of the defendant, and, therefore, he cannot, in this proceeding, attack its constitutionality. See opinion, State v. Mylod.  