good law, for there an inhabitant of Tottridge was charged to the poor of Hatfield; and the justices of the peace have power to award a distress, where a person is assessed to the poor of the parish where he hath land or is an inhabitant; but where he is charged to the relief of another parish there the case is beyond their jurisdiction. But if the cause of the commitment were traversable yet the plea of the defendants here is good, for it shews with certainty in what the ill-administration of the physic consisted viz in the use of unwholesome drugs: and although it is not said what drugs he used, it is no matter, for how shall we be informed whether he has shewn them. In an action against a surgeon for an inartificial cure the plaintiff does not shew what plaisters the defendant used. As to what hath been said that the plea does not shew for what malady the medicines were given; it was answered that it would be so much the worse if the medicines were given when the party had not any malady at all. And although it is not said that the witnesses upon whose testimony the fine was imposed were upon oath, yet the plea is sufficient; for it may be that it was not necessary that they should be sworn or if it were needful the omission of it is not such as will make their proceedings void. In such a special jurisdiction in which the proceeding is to be in a summary manner it is not needful to observe all the circumstances which are necessary in other legal proceedings.—Judgment for the defendants. The College of Physicians versus Dr. West. (from 10 Mod. 358.) The Question was, whether a Man, that had taken his Degree of Doctor of Physick, in either of the Universities, might not practise in London, and within seven miles of the same, without a Licence from the College of Physicians. The Court clear of Opinion, that a Licence from the College was necessary; and that by reason of the Charter of Incorporation, confirmed by 14 & 15 Hen. 8. cap. 5. penn’d in very strong and negative words. As to the Testimonials granted by the Universities upon a Person’s taking the Doctors Degree; the Court was of Opinion, That these Testimonials might have the Nature of a Recommendation; they might give a Man a fair Reputation, but conferr’d no Right; and consequently all those Statutes, which have confirmed the Privileges of the Universities, could revive or confirm nothing but the Reputation, that this Testimonial might give such Graduates. And whereas it has been insisted, That by the last Clause of the Statute, it is said, That none shall practise in the Country without a licence from the President and three Elects, unless he be a Graduate of one of the Universities, it was said all the inference from that would be, That possibly two Licences may be necessary where a person is not a Graduate. In the Case of Dr. Levet, Lord Chief Justice Holt did not think this a Question worth being found specially.