Blalock v. State

• Decision Date: 29 November 1900
• Citation: 112 Ga. 338,37 S.E. 361
• Parties: BLALOCK. v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

112 Ga. 338

37 S.E. 361

BLALOCK.

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 29, 1900.

PRACTICING MEDICINE—INDICTMENT. Since, by statutory definition, the words "practice medicine" embrace the idea of exacting compensation, an indictment charging that the accused did unlawfully "practice medicine." and expressly negativing his having-any of the qualifications essential to the lawful practice of medicine set forth in Pol. Code, § 1477, is good in substance, and will support a conviction, although there be no allegation that the accused received or intended to receive compensation.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Stewart county; Z. A. Littlejohn, Judge.

O. C. Blalock was convicted of unlawfully practicing medicine, and brings error. Affirmed.

B. F. Harrell & Son, for plaintiff in error.

F. A. Cooper, Sol. Gen., and S. Bryan, for the State.

LEWIS, J. The accused was indicted, tried, and convicted in the Stewart superior court for unlawfully practicing medicine. Through his counsel he filed a motion in arrest of judgment, in which is set forth a copy of the indictment. It charges the accused, O. C. Blalock, with the offense of a misdemeanor, "for that the said O. C. Blalock, on the 24th day of August, in the year 1900, in the county aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully and with force and arms practice medicine, without then and there being authorized to do so either by diploma from an incorporated medical college, medical school, or university, nor after having attended one or more full terms at a regularly chartered medical college, having been in the active practice of medicine since the year 1866, nor being then and there authorized to practice medicine in 1866, nor having been then and there licensed by the medical board; contrary to the laws of said state, " etc. The court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment, upon which error is assigned in the bill of exceptions. We think the ruling of the court was correct. This indictment was based upon sections 485 and 486 of the Penal Code, and it will be seen that it substantially complies with the provisions of these sections. It was contended, however, by counsel for the accused, that this indictment was fatally defective in that it did not allege that the accused did illegally practice medicine with the intent of receiving, or after having received, directly or indirectly, any gift, bonus, or compensation for his services in prescribing, suggesting, or recommending any drug, medicine,...