Watson v. Maryland

Watson v. Maryland

Opinion

 [*174]   [**645]   [***988]  MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Circuit Court of Allegany County, Maryland, for a violation of § 99 of article 43 of the Maryland Code of 1904, for the offense of practicing medicine in the State of Maryland without being registered in accordance with the provisions of §§ 83 and 89 of the same article. ] The Maryland act in question, requiring registration of physicians, provides a comprehensive [****3]  system for the regulation of the practice of medicine and surgery, and concerning the necessity of registration, enacts (Art. 43, § 83):

"All persons, except physicians who were practicing medicine in this State prior to the first day of January, 1898, who are now practicing medicine or surgery and can prove by affidavit that within one year of said date said physician had treated in his professional capacity at least twelve persons, who shall commence the practice of medicine or surgery in any of their branches after the eleventh day of April, 1902, shall make a written application for license to the president of either board of medical examiners," etc.

The statute requires proof of good moral character, certain school education, and makes provision as to the effect of diplomas from certain medical colleges, and as to other and various details required of an applicant for the practice of medicine or surgery.

The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland (105 Maryland, 650), and the case is brought here to review that judgment, because of alleged violation of certain rights secured to the plaintiff in error by the Federal Constitution. The first [****4]  of these grounds concerns ] § 80 of the same act, which provides for the sending of notice to physicians practicing in the State without being legally registered, and further providing that those physicians being entitled to register, and yet  [*175]  have failed to comply at the expiration of four months from the election of the secretary-treasurer of the board, shall be prosecuted; and that no one after the eleventh day of April, 1902, shall be allowed to practice medicine or surgery without being duly registered according to the provision of the subtitle.

The contention of the plaintiff in error is that there being no charge in the indictment, nor proof in the case, that he was  [***989]  furnished with this notice, his conviction was without due process of law. But ] the Court of Appeals of Maryland, examining this question, determined that § 99, under which the indictment was prosecuted, making it a misdemeanor to attempt to practice medicine in the State of Maryland without registration, was not subject to the limitations of § 80, relating to the sending of the notice, etc.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.