Case ID: ala-app_19/html/0258-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BRICKEN; P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(96 South. 727)
    (8 Div. 64.)
    BRACK v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    June 5, 1923.)
    Criminal law <i&wkey;l 144(3) — Presumption that court did not err in sustaining demurrer to complaint in absence of record.
    In a prosecution for practicing medicine without certificate of qualification, no demurrers to the complaint being contained in the record, it must be presumed on. appeal that the court did not err in its rulings thereon.
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge.
    Erwin Brack was convicted of .practicing medicine without license, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The following is the amended Complaint:
    “The State of Ala.bama, Madison County. In the Circuit Court. Before me, Carter H. Rice, clerk circuit court, this day personally, appeared Carl A. Grote and made oath that he has probable cause for believing and does believe that before the finding of this complaint Erwin Brack did treat, or offer to treat disease of a human being without having obtained a certificate of qualification' from the state boayd of medical examine'rs, contrary to law, which said offense has been committed against the peace' and dignity of the state of Alabama.”
    Betts & Richardson, of Huntsville, for appellant. . , ■
    No brief reached'the Reporter.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty.'Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
    The complaint follows the statute, and this is sufficient. Masters v. State, 18 Ala. App. 614, 94 South. 249. Inferen tially, it was not necessary that the complaint show the name of the third person, the case not involving injury to a person or property. Morningstar v. State, 52 Ala. 405.
   BRICKEN; P. J.

The defendant wag tried and convicted upon a complaint which charged him with a violation of section 7564 of the Code as amended by the. Acts of the Legislature 1915, p. 661.

The court sustained demurrers to the original complaint, whereupon the solicitor filed an amended complaint upon which the trial proceeded. This amended complaint is set out in the record.

The judgment entry recites, among other things:

“Whereupon the state of Alabama by its solicitor amends its complaint, whereupon defendant refiled demurrers to the complaint as amended and the same being submitted to and considered by the court, it i¡^ ordered that said demurrers be and the same are hereby overruled.”

No demurrers to the ^mended complaint are contained in the record. We are therefore unable to consider same and. must presume that the cpurt did not err in its rulings in this connection. The amended complaint, moreover, appears to be sufficient, as it follows the language of the statute.

The appeaj being upon the record proper, which is withbut error, the judgment appealed from must stand' affirmed.

Affirmed.