Case Name: DANKWORTH v. STATE
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1911-01-18
Citations: 136 S.W. 788
Docket Number: 
Parties: DANKWORTH v. STATE.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 136
Pages: 788–790

Head Matter:
DANKWORTH v. STATE.
(Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 18, 1911.
On Motion for Rehearing, May 3, 1911.)
1. Indictment and Information (§ 111 )— Requisites — Negativing Exceptions. 1
An indictment for violating Acts 30th Leg. c. 123, forbidding the practice of medicine without registering and filing for record the required certificate, need not negative exceptions prescribed by the act which are not contained in'the clause defining the offense.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. §§ 295-298; Dec. Dig. § 111. ]
2. Physicians and Surgeons (§ 6 ) — Regulation — License to Peactice — Statutes— “Practicing Medicine.”
Acts 30th Leg. c. 123, makes it an offense to practice medicine without a license, and declares, in section 13, that any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine who shall publicly profess to be a physician or surgeon, treat or offer to treat any disease or disorder by any system or method,- or to effect cures thereof, and charge therefor, directly or indirectly, money or other compensation. Held, that while such act does not apply to masseurs in their particular sphere of labor who publicly represent themselves as such, yet a'masseur who treats or offers to treat diseases or disorders, mental or physical, and attempts to effect a cure thereof, and charges compensation therefor, without having registered and filed a certificate authorizing him to practice medicine, is guilty of a violation of the act.
[Ed. Note. — Por other cases, see Physicians and Surgeons, Cent. Dig. §§ 6-11; Dec. Dig. § 6.
F'or other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 6, pp. 5488-5491; vol. 8, p. 7758.]
On Motion- for Rehearing.
3. Physicians and Surgeons (§ 6 ) — Practicing Medicine Without License — Defenses.
Where, in a prosecution for practicing medicine without a license, accused testified that he never procured a license to practice medicine, and had not filed for registration a license to practice medicine in any county, it was no defense that the alleged offense was committed before he was required to register and file a certificate to practice medicine, if he desired so to do, under Acts 30th Leg. c. 123, as a legal practitioner of medicine within the state under prior laws then in force, which required a physician to file a diploma or license, and have the same recorded in the office of the clerk of the district court in which he practiced.
[Ed. Note. — For other eases, see Physicians and Surgeons, Dec. Dig. § 6. ]
Appeal from Bell County Court; W. S. Shipp, Judge.
W. J. Dankworth was convicted, of practicing medicine without registering and filing for record the certificate required by Acts 30th Leg. c. 123, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
John B. Durrett, W. K. Saunders, G. M. B’elts, T. B. Butler, J. H. Evetts, and J. H. Hart, for appellant. John A. Mobley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Deo. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key No. Series & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
HARPER, J.
Appellant was indicted, tried^ and convicted in the county court of Bell county, Tex., cm the 4th day of October, 1909, upon a charge of unlawfully practicing medicine.
This prosecution was brought under the Acts of the Thirtieth Legislature, p. 224, in which the practice of medicine is defined as follows: "S'ec. 13. Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of this act (1) who shall publicly profess to be a physician and surgeon, and shall treat or offer to treat any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any physical deformity or injury, by any system or method, or to effect cures thereof. (2) Or who shall treat or offer to treat any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any physical deformity or injury by any system or method or to effect cures thereof and charge therefor, directly or indirectly, money or other compensation."
Section 4 provides that it shall be unlawful for any one to practice medicine in any of its branches upon human beings within the limits of this state, who has not registered in the district clerk's office his authority for so doing in the county of his residence.
It was proven on the trial of this case that appellánt had not registered in the office of the clerk of -the district court of Bell county his authority for practicing medicine ; in fact, appellant, while on the witness stand testifying in his own behalf, admits that he had not filed for registration a license to practice medicine in Bell county or any other county. The state's witness testified that he carried his wife to see appellant at Dankworth Institute, in Belton; that his wife was suffering with some female disease, and stated to appellant the nature of the disease, and he said he could cure her. "He charged me $20, and I paid it to him. Appellant said my wife needed a wash for use at home, and asked what drug store I patronized. I told him, and he said he would call by and have the wash put up for me. I afterwards called at the drug store, and they gave me a powder, with directions on it. He treated my wife at his home." Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, admitted in substance -the facts as testified to by the state witness, but said he made no charge for recommending the wash received at the drug store. He stated: "My occupation is that of masseur, and I practice massage. Massage is a scientific method of ti eating diseases by systematic manipulation of the diseased parts with the fingers, hands, and with brushes, vibrations," etc.
The indictment in this case is in proper form. It negatives every exception named in section 11 of the act, and even if it did not do so, under the authority of Newman v. State, 58 Tex. Cr. R. 223, 124 S. W. 956, and authorities there cited, the indictment in this case would be valid. As to whether or not one who holds himself out as capable of curing diseases by the massage treatment or other treatment is guilty of violating this act is so fully and ably treated in the case of Newman v. State, herein-before referred to, we do not deem it necessary to discuss it here, and under the holdings of this court that those who, for pay, practice massage for the cure of disease, it becomes immaterial whether or not a charge was made for the prescription at the drug store.
The other assignments of error all relate to the failure to give' several special charges requested by appellant. The court in its main charge instructed the jury: "You are charged that the provisions of the foregoing law do not apply to masseurs in their particular sphere of labor, who publicly represent themselves as such; but in this connection you are further charged that a masseur is not permitted under the law to treat, or offer to treat, diseases or disorders, mental or physical, or to effect cures thereof, and charge therefor, directly or indirectly, money or other compensation." This charge is in accordance with the decisions of this court, and there was no error in refusing to give the special instructions requested.
The judgment is affirmed.