Hicks v. State, (No. 5991.)
Decision Date | 01 December 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 5991.) |
Citation | 227 S.W. 302 |
Parties | HICKS v. STATE. |
Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Anderson County Court; Mills Q. Reeves, Judge.
D. M. Hicks was convicted of unlawfully engaging in the practice of medicine, and he appeals. Affirmed.
A. G. Greenwood and A. M. Barton, both of Palestine, for appellant.
Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted in the county court of Anderson county of unlawfully engaging in the practice of medicine, and his punishment fixed at a fine of $50 and one hour in the county jail.
Our statutes (chapter 6, tit. 12, Vernon's Penal Code) contain many provisions governing and defining the unlawful practice of medicine in this state, and since the passage of the law of 1907, there have been many cases in the courts in which men who practiced the healing art in various ways have made known their objections to certain provisions of this law, and have called in question the constitutionality of the same. In the instant case, appellant was shown to be a chiropractor, operating in Palestine, Anderson county; and, not having registered with the district clerk of said county, either a certificate of some authorized board of medical examiners, or a verification certificate, such as is required by the terms of said chapter, he was indicted and convicted, as stated. Upon his trial, he attacked the sufficiency of the indictment by motion to quash, the first ground of which was that said indictment, in addition to the allegations of failure to file the certificates above mentioned, should have stated that appellant did not register his age, post office address, place of birth, or school of practice to which he professes to belong, with said clerk. An inspection of article 750 of our Penal Code discloses that one who desires to legally practice medicine in this state must first register with the district clerk of the county of his residence the document evidencing his authority to so practice, which document is either a verification certificate, such as is provided in article 752, P. C., or a certificate from a board of medical examiners, such as is provided in article 753, P. C.; and, in addition to such certificate, he must also give under oath his age, post office address, place of birth, etc.
Appellant was not charged in this case with failing to record with the district clerk these latter facts under oath, but only with having failed to register a proper certificate. It seems clear that, even though some character of document under oath setting out the age, address, place of birth, etc., of appellant had been filed with said clerk, this would not have met the demands of the law, and that in such case, if one who had filed such statement attempted to practice medicine without registering the required certificate, he would be held guilty of violating the law. It follows that we are of opinion that failure to file such certificate would be of itself a violation of the law, whether the remainder of the requirements with regard to age, birth, etc., were complied with or not, and that an allegation of failure to file such certificate as a condition precedent to the practice of medicine would be sufficient. We do not find anything in Young v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 133, 167 S. W. 1112, cited by appellant which holds to the contrary. Said opinion merely concludes that it must be alleged that the necessary papers were filed with the district clerk of the county of the practitioner's residence. In said opinion, Lockhart v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 73, 124 S. W. 923, and Marshall v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 119 S. W. 310, are cited as supporting authorities, and each of them is a decision wholly on the point that such papers must be filed in the county of residence.
In Byrd v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. R. 242, 162 S. W. 360, the same learned judge who wrote in the Young Case, supra, upheld an indictment identical in legal effect and terms with that now before us.
A second ground of said motion to quash is based on the proposition that article 5741 of our Civil Code and article 5742 thereof conflict with each other, in that the former prescribes certain subjects upon which every applicant for license to practice medicine must stand an examination, while the latter specifically provides that nothing in this law—referring to the law of medical examination—shall discriminate against any school or system of medical practice. Neither the trial court, nor this court, is informed by this motion wherein the said conflict arises. The mere statement that there is a conflict, or that the terms of one article are contradictory of another, presents nothing demanding favorable judgment, unless there be something in the language or construction in one of said articles which is in fact in conflict with the other. The only matter before the trial court, in passing on this motion, or before this court in reviewing such action, was and is whether in article 5741 anything appears which is in conflict with article 5742. The respective articles are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. State
...of this legislation are overruled. Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 32 S. Ct. 286, 56 L. Ed. 439; 21 R. C. L. 354, 355; Hicks v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 227 S. W. 302; Less v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 154, 246 S. W. 382; Black v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 253, 216 S. W. 181; Denton v. State, 83......
-
Robertus v. State
...to discuss this at any length, because this law has often been held by this court as constitutional. In the case of Hicks v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 227 S. W. 302, 304, wherein it was contended that this law was discriminatory, Judge Lattimore, speaking for the court, said: "The law as a......
-
Larson v. State
...150 S. W. 434; Lewis v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. R. 593, 155 S. W. 523; Singh v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 146 S. W. 891; Hicks v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 227 S. W. 302; Black v. State, 86 Tex. Cr. R. 254, 216 S. W. As such practitioner, he is required, by the terms of article 750, Vernon's P......
-
Barrett v. State
...S. W. 923; Marshall v. State, 56 Tex. Cr. R. 205, 119 S. W. 310; Young v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. R. 133, 167 S. W. 1112; Hicks v. State, 88 Tex. Cr. R. 438, 227 S. W. 302; Less v. State, 93 Tex. Cr. R. 155, 246 S. W. The only evidence found in the bill of exception — or, for that matter, in the......