State Board of Medical Examiners v. Baker

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State Board of Medical Examiners v. Baker

160 A. 339, 10 N.J. Misc. 663, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedMay 16, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A. 339 (State Board of Medical Examiners v. Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Board of Medical Examiners v. Baker, 160 A. 339, 10 N.J. Misc. 663, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129 (N.J. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This writ of certiorari seeks a review of a judgment of the District Court of the city of Elizabeth, adjudging the defendant not guilty of a violation of the act regulating the practice of chiropody.

The defendant is not licensed as a chiropodist. The testimony of the several witnesses for the state board was that he examined their feet by feeling “around those bones in the feet;” took impressions of their feet; and, in each instance, recommended arch supports, and made such supports for them. The charge was $15 in each case. The defendant testified in substance as did the prosecutor’s witnesses. On behalf of the prosecutor, an expert witness was permitted to testify that the things admittedly done by the respondent constituted the practice of chiropody. We are not called upon to pass upon the competency of the testimony of this expert. The pertinent part of it was admitted without objection.

The situation thus presented is one where it appeared from the uncontradicted testimony of the factual witnesses and the admitted expert testimony that the respondent had prac[664]*664ticed chiropody. There being no conflict in the testimony before the trial judge, we are of opinion that he was not at liberty to disregard the evidence and substitute his own opinion, unsupported by evidence, in place thereof. A verdict must be considered in view of the situation presented to the trial court. A verdict erroneous on the theory and proofs presented to the trial court cannot be sustained. First Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hunt, 100 N. J. L. 308; 127 Atl. Rep. 209; Flammer v. Morelli, 100 N. J. L. 314; 126 Atl. Rep. 307.

The judgment under review will be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded Costs will abide the outcome of the proceeding.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This writ of certiorari seeks a review of a judgment of the District Court of the city of Elizabeth, adjudging the defendant not guilty of a violation of the act regulating the practice of chiropody.

The defendant is not licensed as a chiropodist. The testimony of the several witnesses for the state board was that he examined their feet by feeling “around those bones in the feet;” took impressions of their feet; and, in each instance, recommended arch supports, and made such supports for them. The charge was $15 in each case. The defendant testified in substance as did the prosecutor’s witnesses. On behalf of the prosecutor, an expert witness was permitted to testify that the things admittedly done by the respondent constituted the practice of chiropody. We are not called upon to pass upon the competency of the testimony of this expert. The pertinent part of it was admitted without objection.

The situation thus presented is one where it appeared from the uncontradicted testimony of the factual witnesses and the admitted expert testimony that the respondent had prac[664]*664ticed chiropody. There being no conflict in the testimony before the trial judge, we are of opinion that he was not at liberty to disregard the evidence and substitute his own opinion, unsupported by evidence, in place thereof. A verdict must be considered in view of the situation presented to the trial court. A verdict erroneous on the theory and proofs presented to the trial court cannot be sustained. First Caldwell Oil Co. v. Hunt, 100 N. J. L. 308; 127 Atl. Rep. 209; Flammer v. Morelli, 100 N. J. L. 314; 126 Atl. Rep. 307.

The judgment under review will be reversed, and a venire de novo awarded Costs will abide the outcome of the proceeding.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A. 339, 10 N.J. Misc. 663, 1932 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-board-of-medical-examiners-v-baker-nj-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack