Summary
In Lawson v. State, 171 Ind. 431, 84 N.E. 974 (1908), the defendant was charged with and convicted of the murder of her husband, which she claimed was done in self-defense.
Summary of this case from Alford v. StateOpinion
04-01-1908
STATE v. LAWSON.
Daniel O. Hastings, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State. J. Frank Ball, for defendant.
G. Herman Lawson, alias Lawson Herman, was indicted for practicing medicine without a license. Verdict of guilty.
Argued before LORE, G. J., and GRUBB and PENNEWILL, JJ.
Daniel O. Hastings, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State. J. Frank Ball, for defendant.
LORE, C. J. (charging the jury). The defendant is charged with practicing medicine without a license. Under the statutes of this state it is a misdemeanor for any person to engage in, practicing the profession of medicine within the limits of this state without first having obtained a license therefor. The persons classed by the statute as physicians are designated as follows: "Every person (except apothecaries) whose business it is for fee and reward to prescribe remedies or perform surgical operations for the cure of any bodily disease or ailing, shall be deemed a physician or dentist as the case may be, within the meaning of this act." Rev. Code 1852, as amended in 1893, p. 58, c. 117. The defendant does not contend that he had a license to practice medicine, but relics on the defense that ho treated his patients personally by hypnotism and massage, without prescribing any remedies, and that such treatment is not in violation of the statute.
Your inquiry, then, is: Did the defendant for fee or reward "prescribe remedies" or perform surgical operations for the cure of any bodily disease or ailing in this county within two years next before the finding of this indictment? It is the duty of the court to instruct you as to the meaning of the words "prescribe remedies," used in the statute. In medicine, to "prescribe remedies" is defined to be "to write or to give medical directions; to indicate remedies." It is not necessary that such prescription should be in writing. It may be given or indicated verbally. Any direction given to the patient for drugs, medicines, or other remedies for the cure of bodily diseases, directing how they are to be applied to or used by the patient, is prescribing remedies within the meaning of the statute. It would make no difference whether the direction was given by the defendant himself or by another person, even though such other person be a licensed physician, but engaged by and acting under the control and direction of the defendant in that particular in the conduct of his business. State v. Paul, 56 Nob. 369, 76 N. W. 861; Benham v. State, 116 Ind. 112, 18 N. E. 454; In re Bruendl's Will, 102 Wis. 45, 78 N. W. 169; O'Neil v. State, 115 Tenn. 427, 90 S. W. 627, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762.
If the testimony, therefore, shows that the defendant gave directions to or indicated to any of his patients that they use powders, plasters, baths of alcohol, whisky, or mud, or other remedies of any kind, such direction or indication by him would be prescribing remedies, and make him liable under this statute. Should you, therefore, be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, within two years next before the finding of the indictment, in this county, did for fee and reward, either by himself or by another in his employ or under his direction, engage in the business of prescribing remedies for curing bodily disease or ailings, your verdict should be guilty. If you are not so satisfied, it should be not guilty.
If the defendant is innocent of the crime charged in the indictment, you should acquit him. On the other hand, if he is guilty, it is your duty to convict him. The laws of our state are designed to protect the community, and especially that portion of it which by reason of sickness and disease is peculiarly subject to imposition.
Verdict, guilty.