This is a view that cannot be accepted. No one maintains that all serious departures on the part of a medical practitioner from the standards of moral conduct amount to misconduct in a professional respect. But if his professional relationships are the occasion or source of the misconduct and it is sufficiently serious it may be deemed by the Medical Board to be infamous conduct in a professional respect. The case here is of a doctor attending a hospital and in frequent contact with the nursing staff. To the authority which, at all events as to her duties with reference to the patient, a doctor exercises over the nurse is added his formal position as superintendent of the hospital. His duty brings him to the hospital at all hours and in the hospital itself he and the nurse take advantage of the empty cubicles to commit adultery, she at the time being on night duty. One who makes a critical examination of the words of the definition framed by Lopes L.J. [1] may seize on the expression "in pursuit of his profession" as not accurately fitting the case. But that definition is not exhaustive and moreover the case is plainly within its general intendment. Cf. In re Robson [2] . However much the general moral aspect of the matter may be emphasized as going to the relationship between man and woman, it remains true that the place was the hospital, the woman was a nurse, the man was a doctor and moreover superintendent of the hospital. It arose out of a relationship professionally established and it was destructive of the position he should have held in the hospital and of his influence. All these are matters enabling the Board to find as they did. Removal of Dr. Hoile's name from the register may spell disaster to him but that is the only discipline which in the interests of his profession the legislature has authorized. The order of the Supreme Court was clearly right and the appeal should be dismissed with costs.