{
  "id": 1524370,
  "name": "Foo Lun v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Foo Lun v. State",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "477",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 475"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 4180,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.68,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3557731950430152e-07,
      "percentile": 0.63448409540479
    },
    "sha256": "845ce57abe3e5100e8ecbbc5a5a134d8dac0133b71f3829db129047f1cb9013c",
    "simhash": "1:741594b49e29e6ec",
    "word_count": 723
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Foo Lun v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) Appellant asks for a reversal of this case because the court erred in giving to the jury over his objections instruction No. 3, as follows:\n\u201c3. You are further instructed that by the term of 'practicing medicine\u2019 it is meant to charge a person who undertakes to consider the nature of the ailment of a patient and to prescribe for him a remedy therefor; and if you find from the evidence in this case that defendant examined into or in any manner considered the physical ailments as represented to him by the witness Montgomery, and prescribed or attempted to prescribe a rpmedy therefor, you will find him guilty.\u201d\nAppellant was indicted and convicted under sections 5239 and 5241 of Kirby\u2019s Digest regulating the practice of medicine.\nA number of States have passed statutes regulating the practice of medicine. In some instances the Legislatures have undertaken to define what is meant by the phrase \u201cpractice of medicine;\u201d in others they have not. In cases where the Legislatures have not undertaken to define the meaning of the phrase, it has been construed to be used.in its ordinary and popular sense. In cases where the words \u201cpractice of medicine\u201d have been defined by the Legislatures, the definition has been followed by the courts.\nSection 5243 of Kirby\u2019s Digest provides that \u201cany person shall be regarded as practicing medicine in any of its departments, within the meaning of this -act, who shall append M. D. or M. B. to his name; or repeatedly prescribe or direct, for the use of any person or persons, any drug or medicine or other agency for the treatment, cure or relief of any bodily injury, deformity or disease.\u201d We think it was the intention of the Legislature to define the crime-by the use of the language quoted.\nThe statute defines practicing medicine as repeatedly prescribing or directing, etc.\nThe court erred in giving its own meaning to these words in instruction No. 3, and in not defining them in the meaning of the statute. It was the duty of the court to give effect to the intention of the lawmakers as embodied in the statute.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. V. Teague, for appellant.",
      "William P. Kirby, Attorney General, and Dan\u2019l Taylor, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Foo Lun v. State.\nOpinion delivered December 9, 1907.\nMedicine \u2014 practice OF, defined. \u2014 It was error to instruct the jury that the term \u201cpracticing medicine\u201d applies to one \u201cwho undertakes to consider the nature of the ailment of a patient and to prescribe for him a remedy therefor,\u201d as the Legislature in Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 5243> has defined the meaning of that term.\nAppeal from Garland .Circuit Court; S. W. Leslie, Special Judge;\nreversed.\nstatement by the court.\nThe appellant was indicted in the Garland Circuit Court for practicing medicine without first having procured a certificate and license as prescribed by the statutes.\nJohn Montgomery testified for the State: \u201cI went up and got some medicine from defendant, paid him, and he gave me a receipt. I was requested by the Medical Board to go there to get evidence, to see whether or not he was practicing medicine. He asked me my symptoms. He has an office something like a doctor\u2019s room. This was in Garland County, Arkansas, April 8, 1907.\u201d Cross-examination: \u201cI answered the questions he asked me. He felt my pulse, and asked me if I had pains. I did not ask him to feel my pulse or tell him I had stomach trouble. I acted as a detective. \u2022 He didn\u2019t tell me he only sold medicines, but told me to take this until Wednesday. I saw other persons in the waiting room.\u201d\nThe State then introduced G. J. Erickson, who testified that he was the county clerk of Garland County, and that there was no certificate of the State Board allowing appellant to practice medicine. This was all the evidence.\nThere was a jury trial, and a verdict of guilty.\nAppellant filed a motion for a new trial, and, upon its being overruled, appealed.\nC. V. Teague, for appellant.\nEvery material allegation in an indictment must be proved. The indictment in this case charges repeated prescriptions by appellant of drugs and medicines. This is material, and, not being proved, the case falls. Underhill on Crim. Ev. 42, \u00a7 32; 7 Allen (Mass.), 299.\nWilliam P. Kirby, Attorney General, and Dan\u2019l Taylor, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 497,
  "last_page_order": 499
}