The provisions of the Act were very stringent,' and it the charge against this mini had been thai he, not being a legally qualified medical practitioner, used the title of" physician," the charge would have been made out on the evidence, llut that was not the charge against him, and bo thought tlio.se who were responsible for the prosecu tion had made a mistake. The charge against him was that, not being quiilitieit within the inclining of the Act of 181)8, lie did use a title implying that he was a legally qualified medical practitioner. Ho that the charge was not under the early part of the section, but of an olfence which he might describe as created by the second part of the Act. The magistrates dismissed the infor mation on the ground that the evidence did not support it, and Hint the use of the word " Chinese" before the word "physician" so qualified the latter word that it did not im ply that the defendant was a legally quali fied medical practitioner within the inclining of the Act. He was of opinion that the de cision was perfectly correct. They must construe Ilia Act of Parliament with refer ence to (be cjrciiiiislaueosofthegnjojvy.iind they knew perfectly well thill lliero wove

persons who called themselves Cliincso doctors, mill lie did not lliliik tlinl any por soii miking along tlio streets ol Sydney, or In the country, nml seeing tlio term "Chi uoHo Doctor" In trout ot a house, would bo misled, mid conic to the conclusion Unit the nmii who put up such n hhjii wiib a legally quitlilicd medical practitioner. On the con trary, he thought it would bo n clear inti mation that (lie person wits not a legally qualified medical practitioner. For these reasons he thought the magistrates did not conic to an erroneous conclusion in dismiss ing the information, Mr Justice Cohen concurring, the case was remitted buck to the magistrate with mi intimation thai (ho Court, by n ma jority, upheld (heir (the magistrate's) de cision as good in law. 