Case ID: sw2d_116/html/0403-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KRUEGER, Judge. MORROW, Presiding Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GARDNER v. STATE.
    No. 19489.
    Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    March 30, 1938.
    Rehearing Denied May 18, 1938.
    
      George H. Cavanagh, of Houston, for appellant.
    Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., óf Austin, for the State.
   KRUEGER, Judge.

Conviction is for violation of the Medical Practice Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 739 et seq.; punishment, a fine of $50, and confinement in the county jail for one day.

This is a companion case to that of Jack Gardner v. State, 116 S.W.2d 402, this day decided by this court. In that case, the same appellant was convicted of a similar offense alleged to have been committed on a separate date.

Article 742, P.C., provides, among other things, that each day shall constitute a separate offense. This prosecution is based upon and supported by a similar state of facts as the companion case above referred to, but the prosecution therefor was on a different date. In this case, as in that one, the only contention made by appellant is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to show that he was engaged in the practice of medicine. This was a question for the court, under the law, and was determined adversely to appellant. For a discussion of the facts, we refer to the opinion in the above styled and numbered case.

We deem these facts sufficient to justify the court’s conclusion of appellant’s guilt.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.

On Motion for Rehearing.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

We have again reviewed the record in the light of the motion for rehearing filed by the appellant and are led to the conclusion that the proper disposition of the case was made upon the original hearing. The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.