State v. Greiner
| Decision Date | 10 April 1911 |
| Citation | 63 Wash. 46,114 P. 897 |
| Parties | STATE v. GREINER. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; John B. Yakey Judge.
Matilda Greiner was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and she appeals. Affirmed.
O. L Willett and Morris & Hartwell, for appellant.
George F. Vanderveer and A. H. Lundin, for the State.
The Code (Rem. & Bal. § 8400) makes it a misdemeanor for any person to practice, or attempt to practice, or hold himself out as practicing, medicine and surgery, osteopathy, or any other system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted in the state of Washington, without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked certificate from the Board of Medical Examiners of the state, entitling him so to do. On March 26 1910, one Teresa Smith caused a complaint to be filed before a justice of the peace in King county, accusing the appellant, under the name of Jane Doe Greiner, of practicing a mode of treatment of the sick and afflicted known as chiropractic, without having at the time of so doing a valid, unrevoked certificate to practice such mode of treatment from the proper authorities. She was arrested on a warrant issued on the complaint, and thereafter tried for the offense set forth therein and convicted. From the judgment of conviction, she appealed to the superior court of King county, where she was again tried and convicted. This appeal is from the judgment pronounced on the last-mentioned conviction.
The appellant first complains of the complaint on which she was tried, arguing that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime. But, without entering into a particular analysis of its allegations, we think it sufficient. While it is not recommended as a model, it charges in effect that the appellant, at a time and place certain, did willfully and unlawfully practice a mode of treatment of the sick known as chiropractic, without having a license therefor from the proper authorities, in that she did then and there prescribe, direct, and recommend certain treatment for the cure and relief of certain bodily infirmities and diseases of the complaining witness. It is not necessary that the acts constituting the offense be set forth in the complaint with the technical precision required at common law. To use the language of the Code, the complaint is sufficient if the acts constituting the offense be set forth therein in ordinary and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended. The complaint was thus definite.
On the examination of the complaining witness in chief, she gave a somewhat minute description of the treatment given her when at the office of the appellant, but made no mention of the use upon her of a mechanical instrument of any kind. On cross-examination to the question, 'Did she take your temperature? she answered, 'No; she used a vibrator on me.' The appellant moved to strike the latter part of the answer, and assigns error on the refusal of the court to grant the motion. This was not error. The answer recited a fact material to the inquiry, and it was proper to let the jury consider it, even though it appeared as a volunteered statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fite
...(Utah), 154 P. 942; People v. Ratledge, 172 Cal. 401, 156 P. 455; People v. Vermillion, 30 Cal.App. 417, 158 P. 504; State v. Griener, 63 Wash. 46, 114 P. 898; v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242, 135 S.W. 465, 33 L. R. A., N. S., 179; Swartz v. Siveny, 35 R. I. 1, 85 A. 33; Commonwealth v. Jewell, 199 M......
-
State v. Pacific Health Center, Inc.
...EDT, is based largely on their responses to the State's interrogatories. 20. RCW 18.71.021. 21. RCW 18.71.003(1)(2). 22. 63 Wash. 46, 114 P. 897 (1911). 23. Id. at 49, 114 P. 897. 24. Id. at 51, 114 P. 897. 25. Id. at 51-52, 114 P. 897. 26. 198 Cal.App.2d Supp. 843, 18 Cal.Rptr. 363 (1961).......
-
State v. Wehinger
... ... drugless healing. All such acts for the regulation of ... medicine, surgery, and chiropractic have been sustained here ... and elsewhere as a valid exercise of the policy power and not ... violative of any constitutional provision. State v ... Greiner, 63 Wash. 46, 114 P. 897; State Board of ... Medical Examiners v. Harrison, 92 Wash. 577, 159 P. 769; ... State ex rel. Hagen v. Superior Court, 139 Wash ... 454, 247 P. 942; Laughney v. Maybury, 145 Wash. 146, ... 259 P. 17, 54 A. L. R. 393; State v. Verbon, 167 ... ...
-
State Bd. of Medical Examiners v. Jordan
... ... To say that such persons, unacquainted with the law, must ... conduct these examinations or invite them with legal nicety ... will not do. We so held even on misdemeanor for practicing ... without a license. State v. Greiner, 63 Wash. 46, ... 114 P. 897. The courts uphold the less technical practice ... Meffert v. Packer, 66 Kan. 710, 72 P. 247, 1 L. R ... A. (N. S.) 811; Munk v. Frink, 81 Neb. 631, 116 N.W ... 525, 17 L. R. A. (N. S.) 439 ... Defendant's ... rights were ... ...