*1 mentioned, For error of the-court excluding is deemed motion proper. reversal of aside, therefore the affirmance is set the judg- rehearing granted, ment the trial court reversed and the cause remanded. L. Cousineau v. The
G. 20, No. 11446. Delivered 1928. June Appeal reinstated October states the case. A. R. Anderson of Post for appellant. Graves,
Black & Robert M. and A. A. Turpin Dawson of Canton, State’s for the State. Attorney, unlawfully offense
medicine; fine of dollars. punishment fifty the trial The fails to show the date caption adjournment must be dis- of this court the court. Under decisions appeal State, 842; Lowery missed. Yarborough and authorities cited. S. W. from this 15 days The dismissed. appeal Appellant date in which correct omission.
Dismissed. of the. Commission foregoing ap- been corrected caption having and the of dismissal heretofore entered is set aside appeal Act, the Medical Practice reinstated. Conviction for violating assessed at a fine of and one day’s punishment being $350.00 finement in the county jail. in
It in the information that resided Garza appellant was alleged he medicine therein for without first and that practiced pay County, to so authority the district clerk of said his registering practice. in Cali- had been authorized to medicine duly practice
Appellant other states. He was of a medical graduate college. fornia and in that he did not reside Garza County, testified Appellant in for the into purpose merely temporarily entering the case of Sam D. with Dr. M. E. consultation Philpott Corbin, Dr. who was in Garza County. to the fact that other witnesses testified had Corbin and in an where officeor Garza appointed place County patients opened he be met. Dr. Corbin further testified that had called appel- might on Mr. case. It was Philpott’s lant in consultation undisputed his medicine in had not registered authority practice tended show that Garza medicine Garza for several 'generally had County Dr. weeks, the Corbin’s meeting patients being appointed place at which and the hotel Whether stopping. office in Garza was a issue. It County resided contested closely pellant the state establish incumbent resided The failure of the that appellant county. in main issue submit the timely court were on to and two written charges excepted was taken. refused. Proper exception submitted by appellant state, court request gave which case that are of the law of this
“You instructed mean is meant and does term ‘reside’ as used the court’s charge time as one or for a considerable having where resides permanently abode, if for a time. You are instructed that find settled not reside at the time G. L. Cousineau did time in County, information or for considerable permanently abode, a settled cannot convict the Texas, and did not have will verdict not defendant and say your to the as follows: excepted foregoing charge Appellant *3 “Defendant and to Number re- excepts special objects charge the state and the court for reason that by by quested of the and is an incorrect same is on definition weight the term ‘reside’ and shifts the burden of and fails to proof give the benefit of reasonable doubt as to such the defendant issue.” seems to The term “reside” have defined However, Less special charge. it that shifted the burden of objection charge proof and failed benefit of reasonable doubt. give appellant by charge requested
“You are of the case that the law this burden charged the state to establish the evidence by beyond that at the time in the re- indictment alleged in the and if as sided have reasonable doubt to whether the defendant the time the indictment did will return a not so reside in the of Garza verdict of indicated, the court refused to this instruc- As hereinbefore give that the instruction tion. The state admits requested by appellant correct, that under contends as whole the was jury found a reasonable doubt that must have necessarily appel- n ' are unable to this lant resided Garza We agree understand the record the only contention. As we that contained instruction Num- was stated, 2, which, shifted the burden of and failed as before proof ber of the the benefit reasonable doubt. We are give record, hold, in of the error view prejudicial strained committed. for the state a witness
As Bill of Number shown Exception her serum one occasion testified that had given later The state for mumps. which he claimed to be preventative testified, objection, who over proper called We mumps. that as far as he knew there was no preventative testimony. of this materiality are unable to discern the relevancy effect, seem, it would impressing jury It could have only fact that physician with the reputable it error to admit those whom he treated. dishonest with While that, of, without the statement objection, complained the same matter another state was to prove physician permitted insist that a should follow. in no reversal places appellant position another are not to arise on likely The other questions presented trial. and the cause remanded. is reversed the Commission of foregoing opinion W. Popejoy
J. *4 No. 11480. October Delivered