State v. Yegge

• Decision Date: 05 April 1905
• Citation: 103 N.W. 17,19 S.D. 234
• Parties: STATE v. YEGGE.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

19 S.D. 234

103 N.W. 17

STATE

v.YEGGE.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

April 5, 1905.

Error to Circuit Court, Beadle County.

M. F. Yegge was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and he brings error. Affirmed.T. H. Null, for plaintiff in error. Philo Hall, Atty. Gen. (Aubrey Lawrence, of counsel), and C. A. Kelley, for the State.

CORSON, P. J.

Upon an information duly filed, the plaintiff in error was tried and convicted of the offense of practicing medicine without a license.

It is contended by the plaintiff in error that the evidence was insufficient to warrant his conviction, in that it failed to show that he was practicing or attempting to practice medicine within the provisions of the act of 1903, and that he was simply engaged in the business of fitting glasses to the eye. It was proven by the evidence of Dr. McNutt, secretaryof the board of medical examiners, that no license had been granted to the plaintiff in error. The state then introduced in evidence the following notice, marked “Exhibit 1”: “Ophthalmology. A Science for the Analysis of the Cause of Human Ills and How to Abolish Them. Everybody should know that this is a science that practices by guesses. It differentiates between functional derangements and disease. By its assistance nature cures cross-eyes, without operation; headache without drugs; hysteria without a straight jacket; female disorders without a trip to the hospital; and hundreds of nervous troubles. Simply removing causes is the secret. A true Ophthalmologist explains your case to you. Dr. M. F. Yegge, Huron, S. D. Office rooms over Huronite.” There was also evidence tending to prove that the plaintiff in error had a sign in front of his office with the name “Dr. Yegge” thereon. There was also evidence tending to prove that ophthalmology is the science which treats of the physiology, anatomy, and diseases of the eye; that any deformity in the eye is considered a disease of the eye; any abnormal condition of the eye should be considered as a disease, that it is so considered by the profession; and that the fitting of glasses for the relief of defective eyesight is a branch of the practice of medicine. The defendant, being called as a witness in his own behalf, testified, in substance, that he had lived in Huron since the 1st of June, 1903; that he was engaged in optics; that he had an office in the James Valley Bank Building; that he was a graduate of the McCormick School of Ophthalmology of Chicago, Ill., where they teach ophthalmology particularly; that it had been established 12 or 13 years; that it is a reputable school; that they issue diplomas to those taking a full course; that the degree of ophthalmology is conferred; that he received a regular course diploma, and graduated in ophthalmology-the fitting of glasses; that the degree of doctor of ophthalmology was conferred upon him, and that he had a diploma, which...