State v. Waldram

• Decision Date: 24 November 1924
• Docket Number: 4150
• Citation: 64 Utah 406,231 P. 431
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. WALDRAM

231 P. 431

64 Utah 406

STATE v. WALDRAM

No. 4150

Supreme Court of Utah

November 24, 1924

Appeal from District Court, Fifth District, Iron County; T. H Burton, Judge.

C. F Waldram was convicted of treating human ailments without use of drugs or medicines without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

George B. Hancock, of Cedar City, for appellant.

Harvey H. Cluff, Atty. Gen., and W. Hal. Farr, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WEBER C. J. GIDEON, FRICK, and CHERRY, JJ., and ERICKSON, District Judge, concur. THURMAN, J., did not participate.

OPINION

WEBER, C. J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction on the charge of having treated "human ailments without the use of drugs or medicine, and without operative surgery," and "without first having secured a license from the state to do so."

The undisputed evidence shows that the defendant, as a chiropractor, treated those who applied for treatment for their ailments. Appellant first assigns as error that there is a fatal variance between the complaint on which he was held to the district court by the justice of the peace and the information thereafter filed by the district attorney. In the complaint appellant is charged with treating persons as a chiropractor without a license to practice chiropractics in the state of Utah, while the information charges that, without being licensed, he did, as a chiropractor, "treat human ailments without the use of drugs or medicine, and without operative surgery." While the complaint does not contain the statutory definition of the misdemeanor with which appellant was charged, the words clearly and definitely describe the offense. The complaint is therefore sufficient. State v. Rickenberg, 58 Utah 270, 198 P. 767. In the information the language of the statute is not followed, but the identity of the offense is preserved and clearly charges the same offense described in the complaint, and that is treating patients as a chiropractor without having a license to do so.

Appellant relies on State v. Pay, 45 Utah 411, 146 P. 300, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 173, and State v. Nelson, 52 Utah 617, 176 P. 860. In the Pay Case the complaint charged larceny of sheep. The information charged the altering of brands on sheep with intent to steal--an entirely different crime than larceny. In the Nelson Case, the crime is charged as having been committed on a certain date. The information charged the same crime on a different date, and the defendant was tried for the offense alleged to have been committed on a different date than that charged in the complaint, and on which he was bound over. It is obvious that these cases do not support defendant's contention.

In 1921 the Legislature revised the laws relating to medicine and surgery, and in chapter 130, Laws 1921, created the department of registration, abolishing a number of boards, including that of medicine, and transferring all the duties of the various boards thus abolished to the newly created department. This law is assailed by appellant as unconstitutional. It is insisted that the act is unconstitutional, for the reason that it confers judicial powers upon an administrative body.

The action of the board of registration in ascertaining the qualifications of those who apply for license or permits to practice their professions does not in any manner intrench upon the judicial...