093-NLR-NLR-V-39-POLICE-SERGEANT-v.-CHIANG-FONG-CHING.pdf
330
ABRAHAMS CJ.—Police Sergeant v. C hieing Fong Ching.
1937Present: Abrahams C.J.
POLICE SERGEANT v. CHI ANG, FONG CHING.
573—P. C. Nuwara Eliya, 11.999.
Dentistry for gain—Performing dental service—Fitting artificial teeth—Ordinance No. 26 of 1927, s. 51 (b and c).
The act of taking an impression of a person’s mouth and makingartificial teeth on the strength of that impression and of fitting the teethwhen completed into the mouth amounts to practising dentistry andto performing a dental service.
Ruben v. Sheenhye (36 N. L. R. 205) referred to.
jAlPPEAL from an acquittal from the Police Court of Nuwara Eliya.
T.S. Fernando, C.C., for the complainant, appellant.
No appearance for the accused, respondent.
October 11, 1937. Abrahams C.J.—
This is an appeal by leave of the Attorney-General against an orderof the Police Magistrate of Nuwara Eliya acquitting the respondentof the offence of having practised dentistry for gain and of performinga dental service for gain in breach of section j51 (b) and section 51 (c) ofOrdinance No. 26 of 1927. The case against the respondent was thatone Godahewa required two artificial teeth and went to the respondent’splace to obtain them. The respondent took the measurement of hismouth by giving him some wax which he bit and handed back. When
ABRAHAMS C.J.—Police Sergeant v. Chiang Fong Ching.331
Godahewa came the next day the Respondent produced two artificialteeth, and placed them in Godaijewa’s mouth. On Godahewa sayingthat the teeth did not fit, the respondent put his hand into his mouth,shook the teeth and took them away to alter. The respondent per-formed a similar service for one R. L. Daniel who required one artificialtooth. The shape and measurement of Daniel’s mouth was obtainedfrom a wax impression. The tooth was supplied the next day and Danielfound it was uncomfortable. Both patients paid a few rupees to therespondent.
After hearing the case for the prosecution the learned Magistratedischarged the accused as in his opinion what was done by the respond-ent did not amount to “ dental service ”. He said that “ the accusedconstructs artificial teeth to order. He allows the buyer to supply himwith the measurement of his mouth taken in and then manufacturesthe teeth to that measurement, later delivering them to the buyer for asmall sum of money”. The Magistrate went on to say that he did notthink such a process came within the term '* dental service ” contained inthe Ordinance and which seems to contemplate some action taken withregard to the living person, his teeth or his gums.
In my opinion the learned Magistrate was quite wrong. He appears
to assume that the taking of the impression of the mouth and fitting
in false teeth made in accordance with that impression is a purelymechanical process. I think it is very much more than that. A numberof things have to be considered in, addition to the merely making of theteeth. It is essential that they hould be constructed with due allowancefor the contraction of the gums and also with due consideration to thepresence or otherwise of other teeth in their proximity. It is just asimportant that artificial teeth should fit perfectly as that an offendingtooth should be cleaned, filled or extracted.
The learned Magistrate observed that he had been guided by theremarks of Mr. Justice Akbar in the case of Ruben, v. Sheenhye .* Anexamination of that case satisfies me that the learned Magistrate hasmisread it. The accused there was acquitted on the facts, the learnedMagistrate having some doubts as to whether the accused v/as evenresponsible for the supply of the artificial teeth and further he was of theopinion that there was no reliable evidence to prove that what had beendone had been done for gain. On the question of the meaning of “ dentalservice ” the learned Judge was of the opinion that the expression wouldcover a case of some service which included the fitting of the artificialteeth in the gap in the mouth of the person for whom the service wasperformed in addition to actually fitting the teenth into position in thegap. If I may say so, I respectfully agree. Further, there are certainSouth African Cases which interpret the expression “practising as adentist ” to include the performance of such a service as is alleged in thecase before me. I need only cite one—Rex v. Vlotman, Rex v. Koonin*.The judgment of Mr. Justice Hopley is most interesting and illuminating..
It is clear therefore that the Magistrate was wrong in stopping the casewhere he did. It is, in my opinion, an undersirable thln£ for the Courtto stop a case on ah intricate point of law without calling upon the
> 36 N. L. S. 205.* South African Law Sepcrts, {1011) C. P. D. 879.
332
Lever Bros. v. R. M. Renganathan PiUai.
defence. Kad he not done so, the whole question both of fact —and of lawcould have been settled by me here and now. As it is, the case must beremitted for a completely new hearing before another Magistrate, whowill of course bear in mind this ruling that to take an impression of aperson’s mouth and to make artificial teeth on the strength of thatimpression and to fit those teeth into the mouth when completed amountsboth to practising dentistry and to performing a dental service. Thequestion of fact for him to decide will be whether this was what therespondent actually did and if he did so whether he actually performedsuch a service for gain.
I quash the order of acquittal and remit the case to be re-tried inaccordance with my directions above.
Set aside.