TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Young v. State

Henry Young v. the State

Young v. State, 134 S.W. 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 1911)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 8, 1911
Docket
No. 938.
Judges
Harper
Citations
134 S.W. 73661 Tex. Crim. 4401911 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 122
Headnotes
1. —Illegal Practice of Medicine—Statement of Facts—Bills of Exception. To be of any validity whatever the statement of facts and bills of exception must be approved and signed by the judge. Following Lawrence v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 192, and other cases. 2. —Same—Indictment—Statutes Construed. Where the indictment is valid and charges an offense under section 4 and subdivision 3 of section 13 of the Act of the Thirtieth Legislature, defining and regulating the practice of medicine, there is no error. [Rehearing denied March 1, 1911.—Reporter.]
Summary
The opinion states the case.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Harper

HARPER, Judge.

—The appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Cooke County for unlawfully practicing medicine without having properly registered his authority for so doing, and treating and offering to treat physical disease and disorder, and making a charge therefor. The cause was transferred to the County Court, and upon a trial he was adjudged guilty ‘and his punishment assessed at a fine of $200 and sixty days confinement in jail.

1. The Assistant Attorney-General files a motion to strike out the statement of facts and bills of exception herein filed, because they, or either of them, are not approved and verified by the county judge. To be of any • validity whatever the statement of facts and bills of exception must be approved and signed by the judge. Lawrence v. State, 7 Texas Crim. App., 192; Bennett v. State, 16 Texas Crim. App., 236; Johnson v. State, 29 Texas Crim. App., 210; Moss v. State, 39 Texas Crim. Rep., 3 ; Rushing v. State, 25 Texas Crim. App., 607.

2. The indictment is valid and charges an offense against the *441 laws of this State under section 4, and subdivision 2

of section 13 of the Act of the Thirtieth Legislature, an Act to define and regulate the practice of medicine, and the indictment being valid in the absence of a statement of facts, if the charge of the court is applicable to any state of facts that might be proven under the allegations, this court will assume that the County Court properly submitted to the jury the law of the case. Wright v. State, 37 Texas Crim. Rep., 146 ; Jones v. State, 34 Texas Crim. Rep., 642 .

[Rehearing denied March 1, 1911.—Reporter.]

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1938: 11951: 119382026peak 1938 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Andrews v. Dewberry242 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App. 1951)
  2. Hoy v. State115 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)

Most recent

  1. Andrews v. Dewberry242 S.W.2d 685 (Tex. App. 1951)
  2. Hoy v. State115 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. Crim. App. 1938)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Wright v. State, 38 S.W. 1004 (Tex. Crim. App. 1897) 34
Jones v. State, 31 S.W. 644 (Tex. Crim. App. 1895) 8
Moss v. State, 43 S.W. 983 (Tex. Crim. App. 1898) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list