Case Name: Jack Gardner v. The State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1938-03-30
Citations: 134 Tex. Crim. 520
Docket Number: No. 19487
Parties: Jack Gardner v. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 520–521

Head Matter:
Jack Gardner v. The State.
No. 19487.
Delivered March 30, 1938.
Rehearing denied May 18, 1938.
The opinion states the case.
George H. Gavanagh, of Houston, for appellant.
Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
Krueger, Judge.
Conviction is for violation of the Medical Practice Act; punishment, a fine of $50.00 and confinement in the county jail for one day.
This is a companion case to that of Jack Gardner v. State, No. 19488, this day decided by this Court. [Page 521 of this volume. ] 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.
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.
Our re-examination of the record in the light of the appellant's motion for rehearing leads us to the conclusion that the proper disposition of the appeal was made upon the original submision. The motion for rehearing is therefore overruled.