State v. Michaels
| Decision Date | 11 January 1938 |
| Citation | 277 N.W. 157,226 Wis. 574 |
| Parties | STATE v. MICHAELS. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Municipal Court for Milwaukee County; August E. Braun, Judge.
Affirmed.
This action was begun on October 27, 1936, on which date the district attorney for Milwaukee county duly filed an information charging Henry J. Michaels, the defendant, with a violation of section 147.14(3), relating to the use of “doctor,” etc., in connection with treating the sick. The defendant was duly convicted and was sentenced on December 28, 1936, to pay a fine of $500, in default of which he was to be confined in the House of Correction of Milwaukee county for six months. The defendant appeals from the judgment.
The facts will be stated in the opinion.
Otto Bosshard, of La Crosse, and Fred L. Luehring, of Milwaukee, for appellant.
Orland S. Loomis, Atty. Gen., and Herbert J. Steffes, Dist. Atty., Edward J. Yockey, Deputy Dist. Atty., and Charles J. Kersten, Asst. Dist. Atty., all of Milwaukee, for the State.
The title of chapter 147, Wisconsin Stats., is “Treating the sick.” Section 147.14(3) provides:
Upon the trial it was stipulated: “That defendant H. J. Michaels has been advertising and announcing himself, and in particular did on the 27th day of July, 1936, advertise and announce himself by use of the words and title ‘Dr. H. J. Michaels, Chiropractor,’ or ‘H. J. Michaels, Doctor of Chiropractic.”’
It was further stipulated that the defendant was a licensed chiropractor under the laws of the State of Wisconsin; that he held a diploma from the Ross College of Chiropractic, Fort Wayne, Ind., declaring him to be a doctor of chiropractic; that the defendant announced himself as aforesaid on signs about his office and that he advertised in pamphlets and newspapers as aforesaid; that he treated patients by chiropractic adjustments only and fully informed each patient of the method of treatment before giving such adjustments.
The proper motions and exceptions were made in the court below to preserve for consideration here the questions considered. The defendant contends that under the stipulated facts he has committed no offense under the provisions of section 147.14(3); (2d) that subsection (3) is unconstitutional and void (a) because of its vagueness and indefiniteness; (b) that it violates article 4, § 2, and Amendment 14, § 1, of the United States Constitution; and (c) that the penalty imposed by the court is excessive and in violation of article 1, § 6, of the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin.
In Corsten v. Industrial Comm., 1932, 207 Wis. 147, 240 N.W. 834, 835, the court had some of the provisions of chapter 147 under consideration in connection with the right of a chiropractor to receive compensation for treatment pursuant to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, section 102.09, Stats.1927. The court said: ’
[1] The language of the opinion must, of course, be considered in connection with the statute. The statute by its terms relates to the use of the words “Dr.,” etc., in connection with “treating the sick.” The statute does not forbid the use of the words in other connections, as, for instance, in connection with academic degrees. As construed in the Corsten Case the stipulated facts show that the defendant was clearly guilty of violating the provisions of subsection (3).
In determining whether or not the section in question is so vague and indefinite as to be void a consideration of the history of the statute is useful. The use of the title “doctor” except by those practicing medicine or surgery was first prohibited by chapter 256 of the Laws of 1881. That chapter and the amendments thereto provided that no person not entitled to testify in a professional capacity or as a physician or surgeon (see section 1436, Stats. of 1878) and not possessing a diploma to practice or not being a member of a medical society, could use the title “doctor.” In 1897, the Legislature enacted chapter 264, regulating the practice of medicine and creating the State Board of Medical Examiners. That act provided: “Every person *** who not having the license aforesaid, shall advertise or hold himself out to the public as a physician or surgeon or specialist in medicine or surgery in this state, or who shall use the title of doctor or append to his or her name the letters M. D. or M. B., meaning thereby doctor of medicine [or bachelor of medicine] shall be *** punished” etc. Section 6.
The law was revised again by chapter 426 of the Laws of 1903, which provided: Section 6.
There was a proviso relating to dentists and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jung v. State
...state. State v. Garnett (1943), 243 Wis. 615, 11 N.W.2d 166; State v. Sullivan (1942), 241 Wis. 276, 5 N.W.2d 798; State v. Michaels (1938), 226 Wis. 574, 277 N.W. 157. However, in State v. Tuttle (1963), 21 Wis.2d 147, 124 N.W.2d 9, this court departed from that view and recognized it had ......
-
State v. Tuttle
...80 N.W.2d 380; State v. Dunn (1960), 10 Wis.2d 447, 464, 103 N.W.2d 36.2 Secs. 346.57(4)(h) and 346.60(2), Stats.3 State v. Michaels (1938), 226 Wis. 574, 580, 277 N.W. 157; Mueller v. State (1932), 208 Wis. 550, 556, 243 N.W. 411.4 State v. Sullivan (1942), 241 Wis. 276, 279, 5 N.W.2d 798.......