Teem v. State

• Decision Date: 01 March 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 3933.)
• Citation: 183 S.W. 1144
• Parties: TEEM v. STATE.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

183 S.W. 1144

TEEM v. STATE.

(No. 3933.)

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1916.

On Motion for Rehearing, March 22, 1916.

Appeal from Grayson County Court; Dayton B. Steed, Judge.

David B. Teem was convicted of illegally practicing medicine, and he appeals. Affirmed.

George S. Evans, of Greenwood, Ark., Sol. L. Long, of Kansas City, Mo., and Freeman & Batsell, of Sherman, for appellant. C. C. McDonald, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PRENDERGAST, P. J.

Appellant was convicted of illegally practicing medicine, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100, and six days' confinement in jail.

The record is quite voluminous. In addition, appellant has a printed brief of more than 100 pages. The brief, however, is largely made up of copies from the record. We have given the record and brief, as well as the oral arguments of the appellant's able attorneys when the cause was submitted, due and full consideration.

The indictment is substantially, if not literally, in the form laid down in Judge Willson's Crim. Forms (4th Ed.) No. 343, p. 187, and also follows the statute prescribing the offense, and is valid, as has many times been held by this court. The trial judge correctly overruled appellant's motion in arrest of judgment.

Our Constitution (section 31, art. 16) is:

"The Legislature may pass laws prescribing the qualifications of practitioners of medicine in this State, and to punish persons for malpractice, but no preference shall ever be given by law to any schools of medicine."

By an act approved April 17, 1907 (Laws 1907, p. 224), the Legislature, in obedience to said constitutional provision and in compliance therewith, enacted a comprehensive law on the subject. The different sections of that act are embraced in the Revised Civil Statutes as articles 5733 to 5746, and most of them—all of which are necessary—also in our Penal Code 1911, as articles 750 to 756. This act of the Legislature has expressly been held constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in Collins v. State of Texas, 223 U. S. 288, 32 Sup. Ct. 286, 56 L. Ed. 439, and many times by the courts of this state. However, no attack in this case is made on the constitutionality of said act, and no federal question is raised, and, of course, we decide no federal question on this appeal.

Article 750, P. C., is: "It shall be unlawful for any one to practice medicine, in any of its branches, upon human beings, * * * who has not registered in the district clerk's office of the county in which he resides, his authority (license) for so practicing," etc., and (article 756, P. C.) punished as prescribed, if convicted.

The law provides for a medical board of 11 men, learned in medicine, but no school shall have a majority on the board. R. S. art. 5733. This article also prescribes their other requisites. R. S. art. 5739 (amended in 1915 [Acts 34th Leg. c. 63, § 1]), requires all applicants for license to practice medicine to successfully pass an examination before said board, and prescribes the requisites of such applicants. R. S. art. 5741, enumerates the subjects of examination and requires "all examinations shall be conducted in writing, and in such manner as shall be entirely fair and impartial to all individuals and every school of medicine." P. C. art. 754, says:

"Nothing in this law shall be construed as to discriminate against any particular school or system of medical practice."

P. C. art. 755, is:

"Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of this act:

"(1) Who shall publicly profess to be a physician or surgeon and shall treat, or offer to treat, any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any physical deformity or injury, by any system or method, or to effect cures thereof.

"(2) Or who shall treat, or offer to treat, any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any physical deformity or injury, by any system or method or to effect cures thereof, and charge therefor, directly or indirectly, money or other compensation."

Appellant contends, as we understand, in substance, that he is not a practitioner of medicine at all. That what he did is not embraced within the purview of said medical practice act, nor embraced by any of the provisions thereof. That what he did was merely to practice a new science, whereby he would "remove the cause of the trouble from a person, and the vital forces of his body will assert themselves and heal him," the patient; and that, therefore, he did not have to have or record any license.

We will not quote all, nor give in full, the testimony, but will give the substance thereof as applicable herein.

R. L. Haney testified:

That he kept and drove appellant's automobile for him and "hauled patients to and from his office, and sometimes I go to the house and get patients, or to the railroad station. I do this under Dr. Teems' direction." He is a chiropractic doctor. There is printed on his automobile these words: "Dr. David B. Teem, 528 South Elm." I have been to his office when there were patients there.

E. B. Hanna testified:

"That about July 1, 1915, he had a sick boy. He heard that defendant adjusted people, and this boy was in bad shape. He had other doctors examine him also. That he phoned appellant to come and see his boy. That he came after dark the first time to see him. That when he came, he got out his table, fixed it up, put the boy on it and went to work on him. He put him on a table, rubbed his back and neck, and up and down his spine. I called the doctor and paid him for adjusting the boy. He called it "adjusting." He said the human body was like machinery. He would adjust it and get it in shape, and then nature would do the rest.

R. M. Cannon testified:

That he was an old man, 80 years old. That when appellant began adjusting him, he was almost blind, but now he could see to read. That when he first saw and had appellant to work on him, appellant told him he was constipated, and was hurt in the back, that his spine had been hurt. He said I had a displacement in my body and that he could adjust that displacement, and that was all he did or was responsible for. He said he could adjust the displacement he found in my body, and nature would do the balance.

The witness then described how appellant worked on him:

"He just went to work on me and rubbed down my spinal column, worked on my face and eye, and I got results from it. In adjusting me, he commenced on my neck and went down my spinal column. He adjusted me from my head down, including my spine. He rubbed over my face and around my eye, sometimes both eyes. He commenced on my neck, on the muscles that lead to my eye; then over my face, principally around my neck and eye, rubbed the edge of the eye. His principal work was on the face, back and neck. In adjusting me, he used nothing except his hands. That is what I paid him for."

The witness then stated:

That appellant worked on him many times. He manipulated with his hands. He was adjusting me for my eye. The witness further testified that appellant gave him no medicine, nothing to eat, drink, smell, or feel. That, during the time appellant worked on him, he gave him different tickets for $20 each, which $20 he paid him each time, and the ticket recites that it entitled him to one adjustment for each uncanceled number in the margin of the card by the chiropractic adjustry, and signed his name. That he never called his work treating him.

Mrs. Ritta Barron testified:

That she lived at Van Alstyne. "He first went to Van Alstyne to treat me; then I have been coming here to Sherman. When he began adjusting me, I was suffering from locked bowels. I was in a critical condition when he came. I told him my side was hurting. I don't remember that he made any examination of my body. He found these strictures; and, when he started, of course he worked on that point. He told me he would give me an adjustment. He commenced at my neck and went down my spine. He adjusted the place that was hurting most on either side of the abdomen. He used the word `adjust' altogether; never the word `treat.' Dr. Teem said there was a displacement in my body that needed physical adjustment. He told me that he did not treat diseases; that he did not offer to cure or heal, but he did say to me that, when he found a displacement in my body, he adjusted it as nearly as he could;" that he regarded the body as a machine and adjusted it as a machine. He did not say that he would treat disease, but that when he adjusted the body, it would be normal. In other words, he did not deal with disease, nor propose to cure, but to adjust into proper position a displacement in the body. That she paid him for the work he did upon her.

The district clerk of Grayson county testified that appellant had no certificate or license to practice medicine recorded in Grayson county. Appellant concedes that he had no license whatever. He was shown to be a resident of Grayson county and had been for some time.

Appellant himself did not testify. He introduced three witnesses only. Neither of them in any way disputed said testimony introduced by the state.

One, R. L. Haney, testified that appellant had signs placed on the front of his residence, which was his office, between the window and door. One read, "David B. Teem, Chiropractor." The other was:

"To Whom it may Concern: I am not a physician; I am not a surgeon; I do not treat disease or deformity of any kind; I do not and will not offer to treat any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any physical deformity or injury, by any system or method; I do not offer to effect cures; I do not treat, and will not and cannot treat disease or deformity or injury of any kind.

"I do propose: The person giving full co-operation, that we will remove the cause of the trouble and the vital forces in his body will assert themselves and heal him. I propose to adjust, and not treat. Get your machinery fixed and nature will do the...