People v. Mills

PLUMMER, J.

The defendant was convicted upon an information charging that “the said Allen Mills, on, or about the 16th day of March, A. D., 1925, at and in the County of Tehama, and State of California, and prior to the filing of this information did then and there wilfully and unlawfully practice and attempt to practice, and did advertise and hold himself out as practicing, a system and mode of treating the sick and afflicted in this state, without having at the time of so doing, a valid unrevoked certificate as provided by the State Medical Practice Act” (Stats. 1913, p. 722). Prom such conviction the defendant appeals.

Section 17 of the Medical Practice Act, as amended in 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 114), reads as follows:

“Any person who shall practice or attempt to practice, or who advertises or holds himself out as practicing, any system or mode of treating the sick or afflicted in this state, or who shall diagnose, treat, operate for, or prescribe for, any disease, injury, deformity, or other mental or physical condition of any person, without having at the time of so doing a valid unrevoked certificate as provided in this act, or who shall,

[355]

in any sign or in any advertisement use the word ‘ doctor, ’ the letters or prefix ‘Dr.,’ the letters ‘M. D.,’ or any other term or letters indicating or implying that he is a doctor, physician, surgeon or practitioner, under the terms of this or any other act, or that he is entitled to practice hereunder, or under any other law without having at the time of so doing a valid unrevoked certificate as provided in this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as designated in this act.”

The testimony tended to show that the defendant was practicing a system of curing and healing the sick according to the method and procedure or system known as and followed by chiropractors. The instructions of the court were to the effect that if the defendant did not have either a license to practice medicine or a license provided by the Initiative Chiropractic Act, adopted in 1922 (Stats. 1923, p. xxxviii), then, and in that case, if the jury believed from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was practicing the aforesaid method of healing and curing the sick, the defendant should be found guilty.