Robinson v. State

• Decision Date: 15 January 1925
• Docket Number: 2 Div. 859
• Citation: 212 Ala. 459,102 So. 693
• Parties: ROBINSON v. STATE ex rel. JAMES.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

102 So. 693

212 Ala. 459

ROBINSON v. STATE ex rel. JAMES.

2 Div. 859

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 15, 1925

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; S.F. Hobbs, Judge.

Quo warranto proceeding by the State of Alabama, on the relation of Joseph H. James, as Solicitor of the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Alabama, against James A. Robinson. From a judgment excluding defendant from practicing the profession of treating diseases of human beings, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Craig &amp Craig, of Selma, for appellant.

Joseph H. James, of Greensboro, Sol. Fourth Judicial Circuit, for appellee.

MILLER J.

This is an action in the nature of a quo warranto, instituted in the name of the state of Alabama by Hon. Joseph H. James, as solicitor of the Fourth judicial circuit of Alabama, against James A. Robinson, charging him with intruding into the profession of treating or offering to treat diseases of human beings, which profession requires a license or certificate and without having obtained a license or certificate of qualification from the state board of medical examiners of the state of Alabama. The petition was filed by the solicitor under subdivision 1 of section 9932, Code 1923, and was filed in accordance with the written directions of Hon. S.F. Hobbs Judge of the Fourth judicial circuit of Alabama, as is permitted and provided by section 9933 of the Code of 1923. The defendant filed general denial of the charges. The court on the hearing from the evidence found the defendant guilty as alleged in the petition; that the state was entitled to the relief prayed for, and by judgment excluded and prohibited the defendant from practicing such profession. The defendant appeals from this judgment, and it is the error assigned and argued.

The court without a jury tried the cause. The witnesses were all examined orally in his presence. His judgment based on such evidence should not be disturbed, unless clearly wrong. Finney v. Studebaker, 196 Ala. 422, 72 So. 54; Thompson v. Collier, 170 Ala. 469, 54 So. 493; Bell v. Blackshear, 206 Ala. 673, 91 So. 576.

The relator in the application for the writ of quo warranto avers--

"that James A. Robinson in said county of Dallas, since the 18th day of August, 1924, has intruded into the profession of treating or offering to treat diseases of human beings (a profession requiring a license, or certificate or other legal authorization within this state), without having obtained a certificate of qualification from the state board of medical examiners of the state of Alabama, or the license required by law, and is still unlawfully practicing said profession in Dallas county, Ala."

The defendant, James A. Robinson, by his answer denied the foregoing averments or charges.

There were four witnesses examined; three of them testified in substance that defendant had treated them for pains or aches in the head, neck, or back or hips by placing them on a table in his office, massaging the back with his hands, and thus "manipulated the spinal column," for which each paid him from $1.50 to $2 for each treatment, and that he gave them no medicine and did not prescribe for them, and that they had no diseases that they knew of; that the treatment relieved the pain, and invigorated the patient. One witness testified he was "affected with rheumatism," and received this treatment from the defendant for bad feeling or "these little pains."

The defendant had an office in the Albert Hotel, in the city of Selma, Dallas county, Ala., which he had maintained since August 18, 1924, with the following sign on the glass door, "Dr. James A. Robinson, Chiropractor, single adjustments $2.00." The evidence showed the witnesses examined were patrons of the defendant, and were treated in that office since August 18, 1924, by him.

The defendant offered no evidence, and the foregoing was the substance of the evidence before the court.

This action may be brought in the name of the state against the party offending, when that person intrudes into any profession requiring a license or certificate or other legal authorization within this state. Section 9932, Code 1923. The treatment of diseases of human beings in this state is a profession, calling for and requiring a certificate of qualification from the state board of medical examiners before the person can practice the profession. Article 1, chapter 52, vol. 1, p. 1279 (Code 1923, §§ 2836-2872), and authorities cited in note. Any person who treats or offers to treat diseases of human beings in this state by any system of treatment whatsoever, without having obtained a certificate of qualification from the state board of medical examiners, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Section 5191, Code 1923, and authorities cited in note.

Did the defendant treat or offer to treat diseases of human beings as charged in the application or petition? It appears from the evidence that the defendant is a chiropractor, and that he offered his services as such to the public, and treated human beings with that system. "A chiropractor is one who practices the system of chiropractics." 11 Corpus Juris, p. 758, h. n. 88. "Chiropractics" is defined in 11 Corpus Juris, 758, as follows:

"A system of healing that treats diseases by manipulation of the spinal column; the specific science that removes pressure on the nerves by the adjustment of the spinal

...