Leach v. Board of Dental Examiners

California Court of Appeal

Leach v. Board of Dental Examiners

262 P. 61, 87 Cal. App. 207

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 30, 1927

DocketDocket No. 3346.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 262 P. 61 (Leach v. Board of Dental Examiners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leach v. Board of Dental Examiners, 262 P. 61, 87 Cal. App. 207 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This an original application for a writ of review by which petitioner seeks to have annulled an order of respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years.

The accusation is in substance the same as those in Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, ante, p. 199 [262 Pac. 58], and Humphrys v. Board of Dental Examiners, ante, p. 205 [262 Pac. 60]. The three accusations relate to the same time and the same dental office and all charge that W. M. Cohn, an unlicensed person, was manager thereof. The evidence herein is substantially the same as in the other cases, but in addition thereto a witness for the prosecution testified in this ease that “there was a sign down in the entrance to the building” on which Cohn’s name was listed as “superintendent” or “superintendent of the laboratory, ’ ’ he did not know which. If Cohn’s name appeared thereon as “superintendent of the laboratory” it was consistent with the testimony given by the same witness that Cohn was in fact superintendent of the laboratory. When a witness states that he does not know which of two *208 inconsistent things is true it cannot be inferred therefrom that either the one or the other is the fact.

The demurrer to the petition is overruled and the order suspending petitioner’s license to practice dentistry is annulled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

THE COURT.

This an original application for a writ of review by which petitioner seeks to have annulled an order of respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years.

The accusation is in substance the same as those in Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, ante, p. 199 [262 Pac. 58], and Humphrys v. Board of Dental Examiners, ante, p. 205 [262 Pac. 60]. The three accusations relate to the same time and the same dental office and all charge that W. M. Cohn, an unlicensed person, was manager thereof. The evidence herein is substantially the same as in the other cases, but in addition thereto a witness for the prosecution testified in this ease that “there was a sign down in the entrance to the building” on which Cohn’s name was listed as “superintendent” or “superintendent of the laboratory, ’ ’ he did not know which. If Cohn’s name appeared thereon as “superintendent of the laboratory” it was consistent with the testimony given by the same witness that Cohn was in fact superintendent of the laboratory. When a witness states that he does not know which of two *208 inconsistent things is true it cannot be inferred therefrom that either the one or the other is the fact.

The demurrer to the petition is overruled and the order suspending petitioner’s license to practice dentistry is annulled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 61, 87 Cal. App. 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leach-v-board-of-dental-examiners-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack