State v. Dunham
State v. Dunham
Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
— -The appellant was convicted in the superior court of Lincoln county of the misdemeanor of having practiced medicine without a license, and sentenced to pay a fine of one hundred dollars and the costs of the prosecution. From the judgment and sentence he appeals.
“In the absence of witness a paper containing the following ‘ad.’ introduced. The Crestón Hews of September 20, 1901.
‘Dr. E. Dunham. Special attention given to heart and lungs. Consultation free. Office at Drug Store. Crestón, Wash.’ ”
Clearly, there is here no proof of the crime charged. As against the presumption of innocence, it cannot he presumed from the mere fact that the advertisement appeared in a paper that it was authorized by the appellant, nor will it he presumed that he was the person named in the advertisement, though the name therein and his name he the same. Without the aid of such presumptions, there is no evidence in the record of guilt, and hence no evidence upon which a jury could found a verdict of guilty.
The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to discharge the defendant.
Andebs, Dunbab and Mount, JJ., concur.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- The State of Washington v. E. Dunham
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- PHYSICIANS-PRACTICING WITHOUT LICENSE-SUPPICIENCY OP EVIDENCE. In a prosecution for practicing medicine without a license a conviction was unwarranted, where the only 'evidence thereof was the advertisement in a newspaper as a doctor of a person of the same name as defendant, since the jury would not be justified in inferring therefrom, as against the presumption of innocence, either that the advertisement was authorized by defendant or that he was the person named therein.