People v. Ah Fong

California Court of Appeal

People v. Ah Fong

25 Cal. App. 724

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 10, 1914

DocketCrim. No. 525

StatusPublished

This text of 25 Cal. App. 724 (People v. Ah Fong) 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

People v. Ah Fong, 25 Cal. App. 724 (Cal. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

The record shows that this is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying the motion of the defendant for a new trial, in a case wherein the defendant was charged with violating an act for the regulation of the practice of medicine and surgery, etc., approved June 2, 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 722).

There is no merit in the contention that the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted and convicted is unconstitutional. In our judgment, the title of the act indicates with sufficient detail the entire subject matter of the act; and we are satisfied that there is not in the body of the statute in question anything which is in conflict with its title or not included within the scope thereof.

We are also satisfied, from a reading of the entire evidence in the case, that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment.

For these reasons the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

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

THE COURT.

The record shows that this is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying the motion of the defendant for a new trial, in a case wherein the defendant was charged with violating an act for the regulation of the practice of medicine and surgery, etc., approved June 2, 1913 (Stats. 1913, p. 722).

There is no merit in the contention that the statute under which the defendant was prosecuted and convicted is unconstitutional. In our judgment, the title of the act indicates with sufficient detail the entire subject matter of the act; and we are satisfied that there is not in the body of the statute in question anything which is in conflict with its title or not included within the scope thereof.

We are also satisfied, from a reading of the entire evidence in the case, that it is sufficient to sustain the verdict and the judgment.

For these reasons the judgment and order appealed from are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 Cal. App. 724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ah-fong-calctapp-1914.