Bley v. Board of Dental Examiners

FINCH, P. J.

This is an original application for a writ of

certiorari

to review an order of the respondent Board, hereinafter referred to as respondent, revoking petitioner’s license to practice dentistry.

The accusation upon which such order is based charges that the petitioner herein “did aid and abet an unlicensed person, to-wit: J. P. McEnroe, to practice dentistry unlawfully in the state of California, in that the said Frederic A. Bley did during the period embraced between the 20th day of December, 192'5, and the 10th day of January, 1926, practice dentistry in an office known and designated as 913 Fulton street, in the city of Fresno, state of California, and which said office was owned and conducted by the said J. P. McEnroe, . . . and that in so practicing dentistry at the said office, the said accused was under contract of employment to the said J. P. McEnroe. That the said 913 Fulton street . . . was a place where dental operations were performed and that during all of said times the said

[195]

J. P. McEnroe was and now is not entitled to practice dentistry in the state of California.”

Respondent’s return sets forth all the evidence taken at the hearing on the charge. It fairly appears therefrom that the petitioner practiced dentistry at the place and during the time alleged in the accusation. McEnroe testified that during the time alleged he and petitioner owned the equipment in that office ’ ’; that each bought and owned one-half thereof; that the office sign read “Dr. F. A. Bley using Progressive Dentists System”; that the witness had no license to practice dentistry; that the receipts of the office during the period of time covered by the accusation were deposited in petitioner’s name and that the witness was paid a salary out of such receipts; that no profits were derived from the business, but that if there had been any profits they would have been divided equally between the witness and petitioner ; and that the office equipment was ' purchased in petitioner’s name because the witness was not a licensed dentist and therefore could not buy it in his own name. The foregoing is in substance all of the evidence tending to prove the charge against petitioner.