State v. Till
| Decision Date | 04 May 1920 |
| Citation | 177 N.W. 589,172 Wis. 266 |
| Parties | STATE v. TILL. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Barron County; W. R. Foley, Judge.
John Till was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and he brings error. Affirmed.
The information charges that the defendant did, on June 20, 1917, unlawfully practice medicine and attempt, undertake, and hold himself out as being authorized to practice medicine, and did then and there prescribe directions for medical treatment for the cure and relief of bodily diseases, without first having obtained a license, etc. The jury found the defendant guilty, and from judgment upon the verdict the defendant appeals.Elmore T. Elver, of Madison, and George B. Skogmo, of River Falls, for plaintiff in error.
J. J. Blaine, Atty. Gen., J. F. Baker, Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. L. Dahl, Dist. Atty., of Rice Lake (A. C. Umbreit, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for the State.
The evidence offered on behalf of the state tended to show: That on the 20th day of June, 1917, Mrs. Thomas Thompson went to the home of John Till, taking with her her little girl, who was ill. That the visit on June 20th was the third visit which had been made to John Till for the same purpose, one visit having been made in November, 1916, and one in February, 1917. That at the time of the visit she entered the home of Till, and was conducted to the women's waiting room, where she was met by a helper of the defendant, who presented her a card as follows:
That she signed the card, and gave it, with 25 cents, to the helper. That after this preliminary she was admitted with her sick child to Till's office, where he examined the child, gave her medicine, with directions for its use, $1 being paid for the medicine, after which she left the premises. The witness was permitted to testify to similar occurrences on the occasion of her visit in November, 1916, and in February, 1917. On the occasion of each visit numerous persons were in waiting, some in the men's waiting room, and some in the women's waiting room. These persons received medicines or had plasters placed upon their backs.
It is claimed by the state that this evidence warranted the conviction of the defendant for practicing medicine without a license in violation of section 1435h (St. 1917) the material part of which is as follows:
“* * * Any person beginning the practice of, or attempting, undertaking or holding himself out as being authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or osteopathy without having a license so to practice, or any other form or system of treating the afflicted without having a certificate of registration authorizing such practice * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. * * *”
Sec. 1435j provides:
“The provisions of section 1435a to 1435i, inclusive, shall not apply to commissioned surgeons of the army and navy, or of the public health service of the United States, or to medical or osteopathic physicians of other states or countries in actual consultation with resident licensed practitioners of this state or to the gratuitous prescribing and administering of family remedies or treatment rendered in an emergency.”
[1] It is contended on behalf of the defendant that, inasmuch as he did not hold himself out as a doctor, and rendered his services gratuitously, he was not practicing medicine, and so not required to have a license. It appeared from the testimony that on the 20th day of June the defendant put his hand beside the child's ear, said that she had infantile paralysis caused by the stomach, and that he would give her some medicine, directing that the medicine be given to her one–half teaspoonful three times a day; and that she should be rubbed with liniment every evening, and should return in a month. This performance was repeated substantially on the occasion of each visit. It is claimed that the 25 cents paid the helper at the time the card was signed and the dollar paid after the advice was given was for medicine, and not for the advice. We think the jury was not bound by the declaration contained in the card that the services which Till did were rendered as a matter of humanity and benevolence, and that the jury might properly find, as it must have done, that the card and the sale of the medicine was a mere subterfuge and an attempt to avoid the prohibition of the statute. The case of Commonwealth v. St. Pierre, 175 Mass. 48, 55 N. E. 482, is cited. We think that case not applicable to the facts in this case. The judgment in that case was reversed because evidence offered on behalf of the defendant that he did not hold himself out to be a doctor, and did not charge anything for his services, was excluded. Evidence offered on behalf of the defendant in this case was received, and the question was for the jury upon the whole case.
[2] We are further of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tendrup v. State
...results in a denial of a fair and impartial trial, such denial will not be grounds for reversal of the verdict of the jury. Till v. State, 172 Wis. 266, 177 N. W. 589;Mainville v. State, 173 Wis. 12, 179 N. W. 764. We discover no reversible error in such denial of the motion for continuance......
- Hoffman v. Krueger (In re Salzwedel's Estate)
-
State v. Russell
...could not be bound by a colorable arrangement for gratuitous service if the evidence showed that in fact it was for profit. Till v. State, 172 Wis. 266, 177 N. W. 589. [9][10] Counsel for defendant cite authorities from other jurisdictions to the effect that since the action is penal in its......