Opinion
No. 24306. Department Two.
March 6, 1933.
PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS (2, 4-1) — STATUTORY PROVISIONS — LICENSE — RIGHTS CONFERRED — SANIPRACTORS — PRACTICE OF SURGERY. Under the laws of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery and other methods of treating the sick, sanipractors may not practice surgery unless specifically authorized by a proper certificate.
WITNESSES (72) — CROSS-EXAMINATION — CONTROL AND DISCRETION OF COURT. Error can not be assigned on allowing cross-examination of a witness, justified as bearing on his credibility, in the absence of an abuse of discretion.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Douglas, J., entered February 3, 1932, upon a trial and conviction of practicing surgery without a license. Affirmed.
Chas. D. Donnelly, for appellant.
Robert M. Burgunder and Ben A. Maslan, for respondent.
Appellant, a licensed sanipractor, was tried and found guilty by a jury upon a charge of practicing surgery without a license. From a judgment and sentence upon the verdict, he has appealed.
[1] In everything relating to the nature of the charge, the evidence offered and the instructions given, this case is in all respects similar to and governed by the case of State v. Lydon, 170 Wn. 354, 16 P.2d 848, recently decided. We do not feel called upon to enter into a re-examination of the questions decided in that case, but are content to follow it. Therefore, this judgment must be affirmed unless some trial error occurred to the prejudice of appellant. [2] The only error here assigned not decided adversely to the appellant by the Lydon case, is one based upon the cross-examination by the state of one of appellant's witnesses. We have gone to the statement of facts for the full transcript of the direct and cross-examination of this witness, and after a careful study of all that the record reveals, we are satisfied that the cross-examination complained of was wholly proper and justified for the purpose of showing the personal interest of the witness in the outcome of the trial and thus bearing upon the question of his credibility. In all such matters, the trial court has a wide discretion, and here we find nothing at all indicating an abuse of that discretion.
Finding no error, the judgment is affirmed.
BEALS, C.J., STEINERT, MAIN, and BLAKE, JJ., concur.