State v. Medcraft, 23580.

• Decision Date: 21 March 1932
• Docket Number: 23580.
• Citation: 9 P.2d 84,167 Wash. 274
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. MEDCRAFT.

9 P.2d 84

167 Wash. 274

STATE v. MEDCRAFT.

No. 23580.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 21, 1932

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Chelan County; W. O. Parr, Judge.

Francis S. Medcraft was convicted of practicing dentistry without a license, and he appeals.

Reversed with instructions.

Hanna &amp Gemmill and M. V. Dougherty, all of Wenatchee, for appellant.

J. A Adams and Sam M. Driver, both of Wenatchee, for the State.

BEALS J.

Defendant was tried upon a complaint charging him with the crime of practicing dentistry without a license. The trial was had to the court sitting without a jury, and, from a judgment of guilty and a fine imposed pursuant thereto, defendant appeals.

Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment entered by the trial court, and argues that the judgment appealed from should be reversed and the proceeding dismissed.

Section 10030-1, Rem. 1927 Supp., defining the practice of dentistry in so far as the same is pertinent to this inquiry, reads as follows: 'Any person shall be regarded as practicing dentistry within the meaning of this act who, for a fee, salary or other reward, paid or to be paid to himself or any other person, shall perform dental operations of any kind upon any human being, or who shall diagnose or profess to diagnose, or examine and contract for the treatment of, or who shall treat or profess to treat, or advertise as treating, any disease or disorder or lesion of the oral cavity, teeth, gums, maxillary bones, or extract teeth, or repair or fill cavities * * * Provided further, that nothing in this act shall prohibit any person from performing mechanical work on inert matter.'

A representative of the state department of licenses testified that at about 7 o'clock in the evening, a short time prior to appellant's arrest, the witness took up his position across the street from the dental office in which appellant was employed, and, the lights being on in the office, through a window observed appellant 'practicing dentistry on some individual.' In response to a question as to what appellant was doing, the witness answered: 'I could see him operating on the patient's mouth. I couldn't tell just exactly what work he was doing on the mouth. I was across the street, maybe fifty feet or sixty feet.'

It appears that the witness had sent a young man, one A. D. McCurley, to the dental office for the purpose of requesting appellant to perform some dental work. The witness testified that, shortly after this man entered appellant's office, the witness followed him, and that as he entered the office Mr. McCurley was seated in the dental chair and appellant was 'working on his mouth.'

The testimony of this witness must be viewed in the light of all the circumstances of the case, and particularly in connection with the testimony of Mr. McCurley, who was also sworn as a witness on behalf of the prosecution. Appellant testified that, just prior to the entrance of witness McCurley into the dental office, he had been standing beside a dental chair in which was seated a patient who was awaiting attention from one of the licensed dentists maintaining the establishment, who was at the time in the office. Taking into consideration the cross-examination of the representative of the department of licenses and the admitted physical surroundings, as detailed by himself, it is clear that, when the...