Aitchison v. United States, 1360.

• Decision Date: 06 August 1953
• Docket Number: No. 1360.,1360.
• Citation: 98 A.2d 791
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals
• Parties: AITCHISON v. UNITED STATES.

98 A.2d 791

AITCHISON v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1360.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued July 13, 1953.

Decided August 6, 1953.

David Aitchison, pro se.

Samuel J. L'Hommedieu, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., with whom Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty. and William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellee.

Before CAYTON Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

CAYTON, Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with having violated the Healing Arts Practice Act, Code 1951, 2-101 et seq. Two informations were lodged against him charging that he had "examined, prescribed for and treated" two different named individuals "in anticipation of a fee, gift or reward, without first having obtained a license so to do from the Commission on Licensure for the District of Columbia." The two charges were tried together before a jury which found him guilty. From the sentence which followed he has brought this appeal.

We first consider appellant's claim that the trial court erroneously permitted the informations to be amended after the jury had been sworn. The record does not support the claim. The statement of proceedings recites that one of the informations was amended to show the correct name of the person allegedly treated by appellant and that this amendment was made prior to trial, on oral motion by government counsel, and with no objection being made by defendant. (The informations were also seemingly amended by deleting a reference to a particular section of the Act. But as amended the informations clearly informed defendant of the charge he was called upon to meet.) The contention has no merit.

With reference to one of the charges, the statement of evidence approved by the trial judge sets out that though appellant was not licensed to practice medicine in the District of Columbia, nor registered with the Commission on Licensure in this jurisdiction, he treated a lady named Kiser in her home in the District. The statement recites: "The appellant diagnosed her condition and the treatment administered by him consisted of hypodermic injections, rub-downs and the administration of a considerable number of pills each day. The appellant visited Lillian Kiser several times a week during the time she was under his care. During this period a nurse acted under the appellant's instructions and also gave the patient hypodermic injections, rub-downs and pills." Appellant admitted that he treated the lady for cancer. He described in considerable detail a machine which he had used to analyze a sample of the patient's blood, which machine he said operated on the same principle as a crystal set and which, by a process of dialing and comparing with information contained on a chart, disclosed the patient's ailment and also indicated whether a particular pill would help the patient.

The testimony with reference to the other charge is tersely set out in the transcript and we quote it in full as follows: "With respect to the second charge, the evidence indicated that on January 3, 1953, Officer Raymond A. Fillman, who is attached to the Morals Division of the Metropolitan Police Department, called the appellant and asked him to come to his house at 1820 N. Street, N. W., Washington, D. C., and treat him for pains in his chest. The appellant agreed to this and three hours later appeared at Officer Fillman's residence. The officer again described his symptoms and the appellant informed the officer that he was suffering from a gall bladder condition and gave him some green pills. For his services tic officer paid the appellant a fee of five dollars ($5.00). At this time the appellant was placed under arrest. The testimony of Officer Fillman was corroborated by the testimony of two other officers. The appellant admitted receiving the telephone call from Officer Fillman, poing residence, diagnosing and treating him, as testified to by the officer."

The record reveals nothing as to appellant's profession, but in his brief he describes himself as "a practicing Naturopathic physician in the State of Maryland, .and licensed under the common law of Maryland to practice Naturopathic medicine in said State." At the trial his counsel ,offered in evidence a certificate of the incorporation of "Maryland Naturopathic...