Case Name: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. William Hanover, Appellant
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1909-10-29
Citations: 55 Wash. 403
Docket Number: No. 8375
Parties: The State of Washington, Respondent, v. William Hanover, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 403–407

Head Matter:
[No. 8375.
Department Two.
October 29, 1909.]
The State of Washington, Respondent, v. William Hanover, Appellant.
Criminal Law — Statutes—Repeal—Effect on Pending Prosecution. The repeal of the act of 1890, § 8, relating to the practice of medicine without a license, by the act of 1909, p. 677, without any saving clause for the prosecution of offenses committed under the old law, bars pending prosecutions, and a conviction thereunder is error (Reversed on rehearing).
Criminal Law — Statutes—Repeal—Effect on Pending Prosecution. The saving clause in Laws 1901, Ex. Ses., p. 13, providing that no pending prosecution for any offense shall be affected by any repeal of a criminal or penal statute, unless the contrary intention is expressly declared in the repéaling act, is constitutional; and a pending prosecution for practicing medicine without a license, is not affected by Laws 1909, p. 677, repealing former laws before trial and .conviction of the accused.
Physicians and Surgeons — Practicing Without License — Evidence — Two Offenses. A conviction for practicing medicine without a license cannot be objected to in that there were two forms of offense proven, where there was no attempt to charge more than one crime, and the testimony as to the several indicia of practicing was merely evidentiary; especially where the only objection to such evidence was that it was immaterial and the accused admitted that he had no license.
Appeal — Briefs—Assignment of Error. Objection to the sufficiency of the information made upon oral argument will not be considered where it was not assigned as error in the brief.
Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for King county, Gilliam, J., entered May 1, 1909, upon a trial and conviction of the crime of practicing medicine without a license.
Reversed.
John T. Casey (Milo A. Root, of counsel), for appellant.
Reported in 104 Pac. 624.

Opinion:
Mount, J.
The appellant was prosecuted under the provisions of § 8 of the act of 1890, relating to the practice of medicine and surgery. He was charged with practicing medicine without a license, and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine. He appeals from that judgment.
The state has made no appearance in the case in this court. The information alleges that the act was committed on October 86, 1908, in King county. A trial was had in the month of April, 1909. A judgment was entered against appellant on May 1, 1909. Between the date when the offense is charged to have been committed and the date of the trial, the state legislature passed a new act regulating the practice of medicine and surgery, and repealing prior acts. This last act contained an emergency clause, and took effect upon its approval, viz., March 18, 1909. Laws 1909, p. 677. This act contained no saving clause for the prosecution of offenses committed under the old law. Under well-settled principles of law, there was no authority at the time of the trial for the prosecution of the appellant upon the offense charged. In State v. Oliver, 12 Wash. 547, 41 Pac. 895, the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted was repealed without a saving clause as to prior offenses, and this court held that the prosecution was barred. And in State v. Allen, 14 Wash. 103, 44 Pac. 121, where an act was repealed without any saving clause, pending an appeal to this court, it was held that a prosecution under the repealed act was barred, the court saying:
"It is familiar law that the repeal of a statute pending a prosecution thereunder, without any saving clause as to such prosecution, will prevent its being further prosecuted, and this rule applies as well after judgment and sentence, pending an appeal duly taken therefrom, as before the final determination in the trial court."
The judgment appealed from must therefore be reversed, and the appellant discharged.
Rudkin, C. J., Crow, Parker, and Dunbar, JJ., concur.