State v. Newton
| Decision Date | 07 August 1905 |
| Citation | 81 P. 1002,39 Wash. 491 |
| Parties | STATE v. NEWTON. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, King County; C. H. Neal, Judge.
Harvey F. Newton was convicted of illegally practicing dentistry and appeals. Reversed.
John R Parker and E. J. Brown, for appellant.
Kenneth Mackintosh and Samuel R. Stern, for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted upon an information charging him with practicing dentistry, in that he did 'treat a disease and lesion of the human teeth, and did correct malpositions of the human teeth and jaws of one Mrs. Eliza Agutter.' From a judgment of conviction he appeals to this court. The information was filed May 2, 1904. The evidence shows that in March, 1903, appellant was working in the dentist office of one Dr. Brown. Mrs. Agutter at that time and prior thereto had dental work done therein, and procured a set of false teeth. As they did not fit properly, she returned to the same office some time after getting the teeth, and had another impression taken and a new set of teeth made. This work, she says, was done by appellant. She fixes the time very positively as being in July, 1903. She had no natural teeth at that time. She says appellant did nothing at this time except to take a plaster impression of her jaws and fit the new teeth. Appellant and six or seven witnesses testified to the effect that appellant was not connected with Dr. Brown's office during the month of July, 1903, but that he had removed to Everett in June of that year, and was engaged in a dental office in the latter city during July. Appellant testifies positively that he last saw Mrs. Agutter in March; that he did not take the impression testified to by her, nor make the second set of teeth which she testified concerning. After the testimony of appellant and his witnesses was in, Mrs. Agutter, upon rebuttal, testified that the work in question was done 'after May.' Appellant contends that the work he did for Mrs. Agutter was completed more than one year prior to the filing of the information and that the prosecution is consequently barred by the statute of limitations. This was a question of fact, and ordinarily the verdict of the jury thereupon would be conclusive in a case of conflicting, material, and competent evidence. But we cannot escape the conclusion that the facts here constitute a case coming within the exception to the rule. Mrs. Agutter in the case in chief fixed the time positively as being in July. She remembered it distinctly, as she says, because it was about the end of the 'berrying' season. Upon rebuttal, her attention being called to the matter, she answered a leading question by saying that the time was 'after May.' This has the appearance of a modification of her evidence to avoid the effect of the testimony of the many witnesses who swore that appellant was not in Dr. Brown's office in July, but was in business during all of that month in Everett. The evidence of these numerous witnesses was consistent, straightforward, and remained unshaken. In view of this fact, and in view of the fact that Mrs. Agutter's evidence is uncorroborated and unsatisfactory on this point, and that, having visited the office at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Merritt
...to the statute of limitations. Suppl. Br. of Pet’r (Corrected) at 14. In support for her contentions, Merritt cites State v. Newton , 39 Wash. 491, 493, 81 P. 1002 (1905), where the court held that determining whether the State was barred by the statute of limitations was a question for the......
-
State v. Hill
...thought the evidence unworthy of belief ( State v. Payne, 6 Wash. 563, 34 P. 317; State v. Pagano, 7 Wash. 549, 35 P. 387; State v. Newton, 39 Wash. 491, 81 P. 1002); but the general rule is that the weight and credibility of the evidence in a criminal case is for the jury, and that the app......
-
State v. Bidegain
... ... weak and uncertain character that the court cannot say that ... the jury was not misled by irrelevant and illegal testimony ... appearing in the record, and did not act upon prejudice or ... passion, a new trial will be ordered. (State v ... Newton, 39 Wash. 491, 81 P. 1003; State v ... O'Hara, 17 Wash. 525, 50 P. 478; Goldstone v ... Rustemeyer, 21 Idaho 706, 123 P. 635; 3 Cyc. 352, 353; ... Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Scheele, 34 Neb. 819, 52 N.W. 817.) ... Roy L ... Black, Attorney General, and Alfred F. Stone, Assistant, for ... ...
-
State v. Haynes
...and where it is directly contradictory, as herein, a conviction cannot stand. (State v. Darrah, 60 Idaho 479, 92 P.2d 143; State v. Newton, 39 Wash. 491, 81 P. 1002; Jackson v. State, 12 Okla. Crim. 446, 158 P. State v. Butler, 38 N.M. 453, 34 P.2d 1100.) The judgment is reversed and the ca......