Opinion
No. 2834.
Decided December 17, 1913.
1. — Illegal Practice of Medicine — Indictment.
Where, upon trial of illegally practicing medicine, the indictment was sufficient, there was no error in overruling a motion to quash.
2. — Same — Former Jeopardy — Separate Offense.
Article 756, Penal Code, makes each day a separate offense, and where the indictment alleged that defendant practiced on two different dates, one could not be pleaded in bar to the other.
3. — Same — Jury and Jury Law — Bill of Exceptions.
In the absence of a showing by bills of exception that an objectionable juror served on the trial of defendant's case, there was no error.
4. — Same — Sufficiency of the Evidence.
Where, upon trial of unlawfully practicing medicine, the evidence sustained the conviction, there was no error.
Appeal from the County Court of Delta. Tried below before the Hon. J.N. Viles.
Appeal from a conviction of unlawfully practicing medicine; penalty, a fine of $50 and one day in jail.
The opinion states the case.
Sturgeon Beauchamp, for appellant.
C.E. Lane, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
This is a companion case to that of the same appellant from the same county, this day decided. The indictments in the two cases are identical, except as to the time, and the person he is alleged to have practiced upon. In this case he has only three grounds in his motion to quash the indictment; those are his first, second and third in the other case. What we said in that case disposes of his motion in this.
The statute, article 756, Penal Code, makes each day a separate offense. In this case the indictment alleges he practiced, etc., on Ida Cauley on or about May 10, 1913. In the other case it alleges he practiced, etc., on Lem Freeman on or about March 1, 1913. Neither is a bar to the other, and the conviction in the other does not put him in jeopardy in this, they are not the same offenses, but entirely separate and distinct offenses.
Appellant made a motion to continue to the effect that there were only twelve jurors on the regular panel, six of whom tried him in the other case, and the others were present and heard that tried, and were disqualified to try this. The court qualified his bill to the overruling of said motion by stating he excused the six who tried his other case, and all the others except one, testified that they were not present when the other case was tried, and heard none of the evidence, and knew nothing about either case. The one testified he heard the evidence of the other trial, but had no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this. Neither the bill, nor record otherwise, shows whether this, or any of said six jurors, served on this trial. The bill shows no error whatever. The evidence is clearly sufficient to sustain the conviction. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.