{
  "id": 8662153,
  "name": "STATE v. WELCH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Welch",
  "decision_date": "1901-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "579",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 579"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653794
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0643-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 N. C., 864",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651850
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/109/0864-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3851,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.432,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0590375355276912e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5560689059477985
    },
    "sha256": "9d538a4ed273449333f28c89f20a87cf5d9f255b9893a4b4f8fe348d4abf62b9",
    "simhash": "1:3248be6e17f4d69b",
    "word_count": 633
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WELCH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clark, J.\nThe defendant is indicted fox practicing medicine or surgery without license. The bill is drawn under section 5, Chapter 181, Laws 1889, and is a verbatim copy of the indictment which was sustained in State v. VanDoran, 109 N. C., 864. The defendant moved to quash the bill, and also in arrest of judgment, because:\n1. It did not negative the provision of the statute allowing persons to pursue the avocation of midwifery.\n2. The bill fails to allege the defendant practiced for \u201cfee or reward.\u201d\n3. The bill alleges defendant \u201cunlawfully and wilfully did practice or attempt to practice medicine or surgery,\u201d and the offense of practicing and attempting to practice are so distinct that the charge is not 'set forth in \u201ca plain, intelligent and explicit manner.\u201d\n4. That the words \u201cregister and obtain\u201d license should be in the bill, and not merely a failure to obtain license.\nThe motion being overruled, the defendant excepted. The provision as to\u2019 the exception of \u201cwomen practicing as midwives\u201d is in the proviso, and instead of constituting a part of the offense, withdraws a eei\u2019tain. class from its operation. Hence, the bill need not negative the defendant belonging to that class. That would be a matter of defense, and, indeed, it affirmatively appears in the evidence that the defendant is not a woman.\nThis statute does not contain the words \u201cwithout fee or reward.\u201d The first two exceptions are passed upon and denied in State v. Call, 121 N. C., 643. The third exception is fully discussed and held invalid in State v. VanDoran, supra. The words excepted to in the fourth ground of defendant\u2019s motion are copied from the bill in VanDoran\u2019s ease, which was cited again in State v. Call, supra, which case says \u201can approved form of indictment under the act of 1889 may be found in State v. VanDoran.\" Indeed, as the bill charges that the defendant did not exhibit to the Clerk the license, nor make the oath necessary to procure registration, and did practice, \u201cnot then and there having obtained from said Clerk of the Court a certificate of registration,\u201d it certainly charges that the defendant \u201cdid not register and obtain license.\u201d\nThe evidence was uncontradicted that the defendant practiced obstetrics. The defendant offered no- evidence, and requested the Court to charge the jury \u201cthat the practice of obstetrics was not in any sense the practice of medicine or surgery.\u201d This the Court refused, and told the jury, if they believed the evidence, to find the defendant guilty. In this, also, there was\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clark, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown Shepherd, for Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for tbe State.",
      "J. F. Ray, for tbe defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WELCH.\n(Filed December 20, 1901.)\n1. INDICTMENT1 \u2014 Proviso\u2014Negatived\u2014Statutes.\nA proviso in a statute withdrawing a certain class from tbe operation of tbe statute need not be negatived in an indictment.\n2. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS \u2014 Indictment\u2014Acts 1889, Oh. 181, Sec. 5.\nAn indictment for practicing'medicine without license need not charge that it was done for fee or reward.\n.3. INDICTMENT \u2014 Physicians and Surgeons \u2014 Practicing Without License.\nIt is sufficient to charge that a person wilfully and unlawfully practiced or attempted to practice medicine or surgery.\n4. INDICTMENT \u2014 Physicians and Surgeons \u2014 Practicing Without License..\nIt is not necessary to allege in an indictment for practicing medicine without license that the defendant failed to \u201cregister and obtain\u201d license, but it is sufficient to allege the failure to obtain license.\n5. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS \u2014 Obstetrics.\nThe practice' of obstetrics comes within the statute forbidding practicing medicine without license.\nINDICTMENT against J. L. Welch, beard by Judge George A. Jones and a jury, at August Term, 1901, of tbe Superior Court of Macon County. From a verdict of guilty and judgment tbereon, tbe defendant appealed.\nBrown Shepherd, for Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for tbe State.\nJ. F. Ray, for tbe defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0579-01",
  "first_page_order": 613,
  "last_page_order": 615
}