Price v. State

• Decision Date: 04 March 1919
• Citation: 168 Wis. 603,171 N.W. 77
• Parties: PRICE v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

168 Wis. 603

171 N.W. 77

PRICE

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

March 4, 1919.

Error to Municipal Court of Milwaukee County; A. C. Backus, Judge.

Michael N. Price was convicted of practicing optometry, as defined by St. 1917, § 1435f35, without first having obtained license, and he brings error. Affirmed.

Plaintiff in error was found guilty in the municipal court for Milwaukee county of practicing optometry as defined in section 1435f35 Stats., without first having obtained a license authorizing him so to do. He brings writ of error to review the judgment of conviction.

The uncontradicted evidence shows that on the 17th day of January, 1917, one Mrs. Helen Bauer, who had broken her glasses, called at his office to have them fixed. He was not there, and she left word to have him call at her house, which he subsequently did. He put a big frame on her face and tested her eyes. He gave one of her girls a card, and she had to stand away. There were different sized letters on the card. He asked her to read the letters on the card, until finally he found that her eyes were good, and then he gave her a pair of even glasses. She paid him $2 therefor. He has a big sign on his house, with his name and a picture of an eye on it.

Charles D. Waugh testified that he was secretary of the Wisconsin board of examiners of optometry; that the defendant, Price, had not been licensed to practice optometry in the state of Wisconsin, although soon after the law went into effect he appeared and took the examination on three different occasions, failing each time. He testified that the optometrical examination consists of an examination on four different subjects, namely, anatomy and physiology of the eye and its appendages, physical and theoretical optics, practical optometry, and, in addition to that, the applicant is required to show by a practical demonstration that he understands the use of the various instruments concerning which an optometrist should be familiar. The applicant for a license to practice optometry is expected to demonstrate a knowledge of the general make-up and construction of the eye, and to be able to recognize a healthy eye--that is, an eye which may properly be fitted with glasses as against an eye which should be directed to a doctor for medical attention; in other words, to differentiate between those cases which require a physician's attention and those which may be fitted with glasses without being referred to a physician. The subject of anatomy and physiology of the eye includes a knowledge of the muscles and the lids, the blood vessels and nerves. The applicant is expected to know the source of the blood supply, the nerve supply, and its general action; the action of the nerves on the muscles, and which nerves control the action of the different ocular muscles. Physical optics is that branch of the general subject of physics which deals with light primarily, the action or effect of lenses on light, and how light is directed, reflected, and refracted. The applicant must understand the spectrum. He should know which colors of the spectrum are easy on the eyes and which rays of light are hard on the eyes. Physiological optics means the effect of lenses on the eyes, the effect of light, the different effect that lenses may have on the eye itself; in other words, physiological optics is that part of optics referring to the effect of lenses on light which enters the eyes. A man practicing optometry should know exactly what effect the different forms of lenses will have on the rays of light as they come from different directions, from different positions, from different distances, on the eyes. Assuming that rays of light coming from 20 feet or more are parallel, the effect of these rays will be different than rays of light coming from a source within 20 feet. The rays of light will be divergent as they enter the eyes from a nearer source, and the effect on different lenses is different. A person should know all about that in order to fit a pair of glasses. If an optician is not familiar with the subject, he is very apt to cause great distress to his patient by putting on a lens, simply because it is not properly centered; by bending the rays of light, the eye would have to turn itself to meet the rays of light as they enter the eye, and the patient could thereby be caused great discomfort, and perhaps permanent injury, and the patient will not be aware of it for days afterwards, and perhaps for a longer period than that. An optician should not only have this fundamental knowledge, but he should know how to apply it; that is, he should be able to take such knowledge and fit and grind a pair of glasses. There are four or five practical instruments with which an optometrist should be familiar. Such instruments are the ophthalmoscope, the retinoscope, the ophthalmometer, the phorometer, and the trial case. The trial case consists of various lenses, and the practitioner should know how to fit a pair of glasses without asking the patient too many questions, because the patient cannot know how to intelligently answer him as to what he may see. A patient who has a slight stigmatism and also is farsighted, if left to pick out his own glasses, will almost invariably select nearsighted glasses. A nearsighted glass, before a patient of that kind, will give him seemingly better vision, but it will result in a constant eyestrain, because it will make his condition of farsightedness and stigmatism worse. We frequently have to send away persons who do not see so well with their glasses as they do without them, knowing that the glasses are for their good and will give relief for certain conditions of which they are complaining. The final judgment as to whether the patient can see well is with the patient, but the final judgment as to whether or not glasses are good for the patient is not with the patient. The patient is often sent out with glasses, when he says he cannot see as well with the glasses as he can without them. After it has been determined with the use of the various instruments what a patient ought to wear, for instance, one of these farsighted stigmatic cases, the proper lens is put on that man's eyes, and almost invariably he will at first not see as well with that lens as he would without the lens, and not nearly so good as he could see with a nearsighted lens. If the patient were permitted to decide, he would say, “Give me the glasses I can see through;” but it would be the worst thing for that man that could possibly be done for him.

Dr. Claude S. Beebe also testified that he is a physician specializing in eye, ear, nose, and throat, who has graduated from the Wisconsin College of Physicians and Surgeons, and who took postgraduate work at the New York Ophthalmic and London Eye and Ear Hospital. He testified that the patient is absolutely unable to determine himself whether or not his glasses are proper or improper. A person who is fitted with glasses never knows what his vision should be. He may have a poor sight all his life, and not be in a position to know what perfect sight is until he gets correct glasses. That condition is one that is very commonly found, and is a condition that is frequently prevalent among people who use their eyes a great deal. A farsighted person, or an individual who sees perfectly for a distance, may still have eyestrain and not know it. In examination of school children it is found that many children who have perfect vision suffer from nervous disorders and should be wearing glasses to correct that defect. In nearsighted people who are unable to see distinctly for a distance, they have an error that should be corrected, and unless they have been through a test, and have been told what perfect vision is, they have no idea what they should see, and when they get their glasses which are correctly fitted they for the first time realize what other people are seeing. In other words, they themselves cannot judge what perfect sight is, or whether a glass is correctly fitted or not. Sight is not the determining feature always in glasses; the eyestrain, which is simply one expression of a nervous lack in the system, is corrected by a glass, and then they realize for the first time that they have had an error which they themselves had been unconscious of. Bright's disease or kidney condition is a condition where there is a disease of the blood vessels. This is indicated many times very early in the disease by hemorrhages in the inside of the eye. This, of course, interferes with vision, and they frequently go to the optometrist to have their eyes examined, thinking their defect is due to the need for glasses. If the optometrist is versed in pathology and the other conditions that are required by the laws of this state, he should be in position to determine that this is not a case for glasses, but a case of some disease, and then refer that patient to the physician. That condition could not be determined, if you merely had a case or frame, and put in different glasses, and tested out the eye. A delay in that matter might be serious. If we have a nervous condition of the patient, and a refractive error, this is one of the leaks of the nervous system, and proper correcting lenses will frequently benefit the general nervous system, and in that way prevent further development of epileptic condition. These conditions of the eye may be determined by the instruments mentioned by Dr. Waugh; that is, by looking into the eye itself by the aid of these instruments.

Aarons & Niven, of Milwaukee (Armand J. Tuteur, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

John J. Blaine, Atty. Gen., J. F. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Winfred C. Zabel, Dist. Atty., and Arthur H. Bartelt, Asst. Dist. Atty., both of Milwaukee, for the State.

OWEN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

Plaintiff in error, hereinafter called appellant, was convicted of a violation of the statute regulating...