Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene Christian, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-12-20
Citations: 122 A.D. 842
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene Christian, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 122
Pages: 842–843

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Eugene Christian, Appellant.
First Department,
December 20, 1907.
Crime — unauthorized practice of medicine.
The court will not apply any hard and fast rule in determining what acts constitute practice of medicine without authorization and registration contrary to . the statute. ■
Appeal by the defendant, Eugene Christian, from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the first division of. the: city of New York, rendered on the.4th day of April,. 190.7, convicting the defendant of the crime of unlawfully practicing medicine.
Samuel M. Gardenhire, of counsel \Ga/rdenhire de Jetmore], for the appellant. . .
. Robert S. Johnstone, of counsel [ William Travers Jerome, District Attorney], for the respondent..
See Public Health Law (Laws of 1893, chap. 661), § 153, as amd. by Laws of 1895, chap. 398, and Laws of 1905, chap, 455. See also Laws of 1907, chap. 344, §§ 15, 16. This case arose under the Public Health Law,--[Rep.

Opinion:
Per Curiam :
The information accused the- defendant, of the crime of practicing medicine without lawful authorization and registration. We have carefully examined the record in this case and have reached the conclusion that upon the facts presented the defendant had not committed the crime- charged.
In People v. Allcutt (117 App. Div. 546 ; affd, 189 N. Y. 517), this court said: "It may be difficult by a precise definition to draw the line between where nursing ends and the practice of medicine begins,, and the court should not attempt, in construing .this - statute to lay down in any case a hard, and- fast rule upon the subject, as the courts have- never undertaken to mark the limits of the police power of the. State or to have precisely defined -what constitutes fraud. What the courts have- done is to .say that given legislation was or was not within the limits of the police power, or that certain actions were or were not fraudulent." We thereupon proceeded to review all of the facts in that case and drew the conclusion there- . from that Allcutt came within the purview of the statute prohibit" ing the practice of medicine without being lawfully authorized and registered, and sustained the conviction.
In the Cáse at bar the learned district attorney has collated certain of the facts which were similar to those presented in the Allcutt case, and upon them urges that the judgment should be affirmed. But there were other facts of great importance to the conclusion reached in the Allcutt case not present here. It would serve no useful purpose to set forth the evidence because, as we have said, -the court declines to lay down a hard and fast rule in such cases. ,
As upon the whole case we find that no crime was committed and that the defendant was improperly convicted, the judgment appealed from should be reversed.
•Present — Patterson, P. J., Ingraham:, . McLaughlin, Clarke . and Houghton, JJ. -
Judgment reversed. Settle order on notice.