delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal is from a judgment and sentence to a term of five years in the Maryland Penitentiary, following a general verdict of guilty by a jury upon a ten cоunt indictment charging forgery and uttering, and attempting to forge or utter, a license to practice medicine and surgery in the State of Maryland, issued on or about October 19, 1957, and unlawfully affixing and making use of a public seal of the State. The Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, on the grоund that the appellant failed to print in his record extract all of the testimony necessary to the determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, in violation of Maryland Rule 828 b. At the hearing of the appeal we reserved judgment on the motion. Since the record extract contains at least enough to permit us to pass on the motion to dismiss the indictment, we think the motion to dismiss the appeal must be denied.
The appellant was formerly the Secretary-Treasurer of the Board of Medical Examiners representing the Maryland State Homeopathic Mеdical Society. However, prior to the time alleged in the indictment, he had resigned as a member of the Board of Medical Examiners, and subsequently, by -decree of the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, he was permanently restrained and enjoined from conducting examinations and issuing licenses for the practice of medicine and surgery in this State. The decree was affirmed by this Court on April 9, 1957, and motion for reargument was denied, May 9, 1957.
Reddick v. State,
The appellant’s first contention is that the indictment did not charge any offense. As to the first eight counts charging forgery and uttering, he points out that Code (1957), Art. 43, Sec. 119
et seq.,
do not purport to deal with the unlawful issuance of a medical license, but merely prescribe penalties for practicing without a license. This would seem to overlook the fact that Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 45, under the sub-title “Public documents generally”, makes it a crime, and a felony, to falsely mаke, forge or counterfeit “any commission, patent or pardon, * * * with intention to defraud any person or persons, * * The penalty is from two to ten yеars in the Penitentiary. See also Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 46, relating to unlawfully affixing a public seal. It may well be that the term “commission” could be construed to include a license to practice medicine and surgery issued by a public agency to which is delegated a part of the police power of the State. See
Aitchison v. State,
The appellant argues that the persons intended to be defrauded are not named, and that the person named, Bisсardi, got what he bargained for. It may be inferred that the li
*99
censee, who, according to the testimony, paid a large sum for the purported licensе, intended to use it for the purpose of representing himself to the general public as a licensed and qualified medical practitioner. It is true that because of the outstanding injunction and notice to the various Clerks of Court, the purported license could probably not have been recorded in Maryland, as required by law; but its possession by the licensee might in itself have sufficed to work a fraud on the public, in this State or elsewhere. Intent to defraud may relate to persons not named in the indictment, or to the public generally. 2 Wharton,
supra,
Sec. 623;
Arnold v. Cost, supra.
It is not necessary to allege in an indictment for forgery or uttering, or to prove, that it was the intent of the defendant to defraud any particular person. Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 612;
Marino v. State,
The appellant contends that the court erred in denying his petition to restore certain documents taken from him under a search and seizure warrant issued April 26, 1957, long prior to the indictment filed January 10, 1958. He claims that the warrant was illegal and this vitiated the indictment based thereon. We find no merit in thе contention. The warrant is not in the record before us and we cannot pass on its validity. It is well settled that inquiry is limited to the allegations contained in the affidavit, in passing on probable cause.
Burrell v. State,
The appellant contends that he was deprived of a speedy trial, in violation of Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The defendant’s trial began on April 21, 1958, about
*100
three months after his indictment. In the interval, thеre were various preliminary motions and amended motions filed by the defendant and heard by the court. The last of these was not disposed of until March 24, 1958. There was no request for an earlier trial date. Cf.
Harris v. State,
The appellant further contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the verdict. Thе thrust of the argument is that the certificate issued by Dr. Reddick was void on its face, and could not be of any legal effect until recorded. But we think the certifiсate was not so absolutely invalid upon its face that it could not operate to the prejudice of another, within the rule stated in
Laird v. State,
Judgment affirmed, with costs.