Denton v. State

• Decision Date: 16 March 1887
• Citation: 21 Neb. 445,32 N.W. 222
• Parties: DENTON v. STATE.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

21 Neb. 445

32 N.W. 222

DENTON

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 16, 1887.

Syllabus by the Court.

The complaint under which plaintiff was convicted charged that, at a place and time named, plaintiff in error did “commit the offense of practicing medicine, claiming to be a physician, in violation of the provisions of chapter 55 of the Compiled Statutes of the state of Nebraska, in this: that, having registered under section 2 of said chapter, he was not entitled to make such registration or to practice as a physician, not being possessed of any of the qualifications in section 4 of said chapter,” etc. It was held that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense, and that the accused was improperly placed upon his trial thereunder.

Error to district court, Washington county.Jesse T. Davis and Horace E. Powers, for plaintiff in error.

Wm. Leese, Atty. Gen., for the State.

REESE, J.

This was a criminal prosecution instituted against plaintiff in error before the county judge of Burt county, charging him with the violation of the provisions of the act of March 3, 1881, entitled “An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Nebraska.” Sess. Laws 1881, p. 282; Comp. St. 1881. c. 55. The trial before the county judge resulted in a conviction, and from that judgment he appealed to the district court. A motion to quash the complaint was made in the district court, and was sustained, and the prosecutor ordered to file a new one, which was done, and on which the cause was tried, another conviction being the result. Plaintiff in error now prosecutes error to this court. Prior to the trial, plaintiff filed a motion to quash the new complaint. This motion was overruled, and the ruling thereon is now assigned for error. The grounds for the motion were as follows: “(1) The complaint does not charge in what particular defendant has violated the chapter mentioned therein; (2) the complaint does not charge any crime under the laws of this state; (3) the complaint is vague, indefinite, and uncertain as to the crime charged.”

The complaint charged that the plaintiff in error, “on the first day of March, 1883, in the county aforesaid then and there being, did then and there commit the offense of practicing medicine, claiming to be a physician, in violation of the provisions of chapter fifty-five of the Compiled Statutes of the state of Nebraska, in this: that, having registered under section two of said chapter, he was not entitled to make such registration, or to practice as a physician, not being possessed of any of the qualifications in section four of said chapter, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Nebraska.”

Does this complaint charge plaintiff in error with the commission of an offense, and, if so, what one? It would not do to say that it is sufficient to charge that he committed “the offense of practicing medicine, claiming to be a physician, in violation of the provisions of chapter fifty-five of the Compiled Statutes;” for it is no offense to practice medicine, or to claim to be...