Arizona weekly citizen., 1884-06-28
DR. CREPIN'S CASE.
What Justice Meyer Has "a say Regard
 ing the Law

Below is Justice Meyers decision in Dr. Crepin's case, wherein the Doctor was arrested for pr ctjcing medicine be- cause he a no: hold medical college diploms. Iae Doctor hoIls a certificate given him ly tle medical b, ard og Cal iiorIia, ccmposeJ o' slght physicians. Acc ming io this decision the Doctor eau c1u'iu1e to practice medicine in Tucson, as the pregeat law does not have any thing to do with his case. He comneDced practicing medicine under the law Ot 1881.
 THE TERRITORY
 VS
 H. GRIFFIN.
 The defendant Is charged with yiolat- ing law of thIs Territory. approved March :, 1883, Gud Geylared to he in force on and after the lst day of May, 1883.
 Defendant claims and proves. that he Id not amenab!e Co this law. us he came tO this Territory and commenced practice as physician and surgeon m the month Oi January, 1883, under the law then m foIce, approved February 3rd, 1881.
 This fact beng established it is a matter Ot great simplicity to arrive at first decision.
 Section l, of the act of ISSl, says that a person to bc able to practice medicine and surgery or obstetr.cs m this Terri tory must have a diploma from Q med ical college, or license from board of medical examiners legally existing at the time.
 Sec. ,, of the same act says, that every person SD engaged shall register the same this diplomI or icenseI in the county recorders office, where be practices.
 Sec. ,. Provided penalties for the violations of either or of Oo;h, but said penalty does nOt consist of forfeiture of his right to practice If lawfully acquired under section 1.
 From all the facts in this case, 1t ap- pears;
 Fisst-That Dr. Crepin is practic.ng under the law ot 1881, and not under that of 1883
 That be has complied with and is law fully entitled to practice appears from a certificate and license issued tO him by a medical board of cxamnels Of the State of California, duly and gElly iu- stituted and acting under the laws Ot sand State. said certificate or license be- ing duly Oi record May ?, lSS3. in the Recorders office Of this county. and bearing date December 21, 1876.
 Second-It might be said that this aarf1tsnasa 1rf...r.s.l. -F~. L.- recorded before the law of 1883 went into effect.
 This was not actually necessary, for section of the act of 1881 says that he shall register the same where he IS prac- ticing or intelds t0 practice. therefore 1t is immatsr srial gs tu time. for as long as he complied with section he had a right to practice.
 In fact, if be had never recorded his certificate or license, the omission could not work a forfeiture of the right he had under section I. aud could hy no means invalIdate bis license to practice. SaI3 omission to record would culy create a liability to be punished f,r @ misde- meanOr.
 Dr. CreEn having once acquired a right under the law of 1881, no sub=e- quent act of any legislature, neither by repeal nor auuuimcnt Ot the law under which he acquired the same, could dI- vest him thereof.
 Therefore, no offerse having been committed the defendant IS discharged from custody.
 CHARLES II. MEYER,
 Jus ice of the Peace.
 Jure K, 1881.