State v. Martin

• Decision Date: 27 June 1901
• Citation: 23 R.I. 143,49 A. 497
• Parties: STATE v. MARTIN et al.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

49 A. 497

23 R.I. 143

STATE

v. MARTIN et al.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 27, 1901.

George Martin, William J. Gallbraith, Frank Whitehouse, and Frederic L. Smith were indicted for practicing dentistry without a license. Demurrers to the indictment overruled.

Willard B. Tanner, Atty. Gen., for the State.

John M. Brennan, for defendant Martin.

Thomas F. Farrell, for defendant Gallbraith.

Edwin C. Pierce, for defendant Whitehouse.

Franklin P. Owen, for defendant Smith.

STINESS, C. J. The defendants are severally indicted for practicing dentistry without having received a certificate from the board of registration in dentistry that the defendants had passed a satisfactory examination before said board, and without having first complied with the provisions of Gen. Laws, c. 155, and the amendments thereto. Each defendant demurs to the indictment against him on several grounds. In some of the cases the argument was pressed upon the ground that the statute is unconstitutional. This question, however, is not before the court, as a demurrer simply raises the question of the sufficiency of the allegations of the charge, and the question of the constitutionality of an act is controlled by the provisions of Gen. Laws, c. 250. The grounds of demurrer, in substance, are that the indictment does not set forth an offense known to the law with sufficient clearness, nor notify the defendant for what he is to be tried, nor set forth how he practiced dentistry, nor charge an offense within the rules of criminal pleading. The statute, as amended by Pub. Laws 1897, c. 470, provides for the appointment of members of the board; for a registry with said board of every person engaged in the practice of dentistry, and a certificate to that effect from the board; for an examination before the board of all persons who intend to enter the practice of dentistry in this state, and a certificate from the board; and for fees for examinations and certificates. Section 6 of the act, as amended by Pub. Laws 1897, c. 470, is as follows: "Any person who shall practice, or attempt to practice dentistry in this state, in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable to indictment therefor, and upon conviction shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than one hundred dollars for each and every offence; and the opening or maintaining a dentist's office, the displaying of a dentist's sign or doorplate, or the advertising a readiness to practice dentistry in this state in the public prints, or by cards, circulars, posters or in any other manner by any such person shall be evidence of such violation." Other provisions of the act do not bear upon this case. The offense declared in the statute is that of practicing dentistry in violation of the provisions of the chapter; and these indictments not only charge this, but specify that the offense consists in doing so without having received a certificate from the board of registration in dentistry that the defendant had passed a satisfactory examination before said board. Under the statute this constitutes the whole offense. The defendant urges that it does not inform him upon whom he practiced. He relies upon State v. Maloney, 12 R. I. 251 (an indictment for obstructing an officer), and State v. Doyle, 11 R. I. 574 (a complaint for a sale of liqfior). Both of these offenses involved a single act,—an...