State v. Buswell

24 L.R.A. 68, 58 N.W. 728, 40 Neb. 158, 1894 Neb. LEXIS 263
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedApril 17, 1894
DocketNo. 6495
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 24 L.R.A. 68 (State v. Buswell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Buswell, 24 L.R.A. 68, 58 N.W. 728, 40 Neb. 158, 1894 Neb. LEXIS 263 (Neb. 1894).

Opinion

Ryan, C.

The material parts of the indictment upon which the defendant was tried were in the following language:

“That Ezra M. Buswell, late of the county aforesaid, on the first day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, in the county of Gage, and state of Nebraska aforesaid, then and there an illiterate man and unskilled in the art and faculty of medicine and surgery, and devising and intending by divers unlawful means falsely, unlawfully, craftily, and wickedly to deceive and defraud the people and citizens of said county of their goods, chattels, and money, to maintain his dishonest course of living, on the first day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one, and thence continually until the finding of this indictment, to-wit, for the space of eighteen months, at divers places in said county, falsely and unlawfully did assume upon himself to execute, exercise, and occupy the art, faculty, and science of a physician and surgeon, and did then and there profess to heal and otherwise treat sick persons of their physical and mental ailments, and did then and there falsely and fraudulently as a physician and pretended healer of sick persons attend on sick persons and persons with various infirmities, diseases, and wounds, and treat them and profess to heal them in the city of Beatrice and divers other places in said county,—the said Ezra M. Buswell never having been a graduate from any medical college; nor had he a diploma from any medical college, [160]*160as required by law, to practice medicine in said state, nor had he a certificate from the state board of health of said state entitling him to practice medicine or surgery or otherwise treat or profess to heal physical or mental ailments, nor had he complied with the law in any respect so as to entitle him to practice medicine or surgery or treat in any manner physical or mental ailments, nor had he confined himself to administering gratuitous services in case of emergency or to the administering of ordinary household remedies.”

The defendant was acquitted and the case is brought to this court under the provisions of sections 483, 515, 516, 517 of the Criminal Code. To a compliance on our part with the provisions of the sections just referred to it is necessary only to consider the sixth instruction given at the request of the defendant. This instruction was in the following language:

“6. The jury are instructed, as a matter of law, that it is manifest from the law under which defendant is indicted that the object of the legislature in the enactment thereof was only to provide for the regulation of the practice of ‘ medicine, surgery, and obstetrics/ as these terms are generally understood; and unless you believe from the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant within the time mentioned in the indictment practiced 4 medicine, surgery, and obstetrics/ as these terms are usually and generally understood, then you will find the defendant not guilty.”

The law to which reference was made in the instruction is found in chapter 35 of the Laws of 189L The act constituting chapter 35 aforesaid was entitled “An act to establish a state board of health, to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Nebraska,” etc. Section 17 thereof was as follows:

“ Sec. 17. Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of this act who shall operate [161]*161■on, profess to heal, or prescribe for or otherwise treat any physical or mental ailment of another; but nothing in this act shall be construed to prohibit gratuitous services in case of emergency, and this act shall not apply to commissioned surgeons in ihe Uniied States army and navy, nor to nurses in their legitimate occupations, nor to the administration of •ordinary household remedies.”

The other provisions of the act are, for our purpose, sufficiently indicated in the language already quoted from the indictment. The instruction complained of required, as an indispensable prerequisite to a conviction, that the jury should find that the defendant- within the time mentioned in the indictment had practiced medicine, surgery, or obstetrics,” as those terms are usually and generally understood. Governed by this instruction, the jury could not do otherwise than acquit, for there was no proof to meet its requirement. Whether or not the instruction was proper in view of the evidence adduced, is the sole question presented for our determination.

It is conceded that the perfect toleration of religious sentiment aud the enjoyment of liberty in all religious matters is of paramount importance, and lest the contention of the defendant may be misunderstood or imperfectly stated in our own language, that contained in the brief filed on behalf of the defendant will be freely used. Such evidence as was in that brief deemed sufficient to illustrate the argument for defendant, was as follows:

Richard Walthers testified that his brother’s boy came home from Florida in September, 1892; that there were running sores on his legs caused, by rheumatism, and that he could not walk except by the aid of crutches; that after the defendant had seen him, about two weeks after the boy came back, he laid aside his crutches and walked by the aid of a cane, and after using that for awhile, threw it away and walked as other boys do.

James Ellerbeck testified to having been bitten by a [162]*162rattlesnake, and that he at once sought the defendant and asked him for help. After talking with the defendant at the church rooms, they went to Rev. Buswell’s house, and what took place there is best told in the language of the witness himself:

Q. What did you do then ?

A. The pain ceased after his treatment, and after driving to his house it seemed to get worse until about 8 o’clock. He talked to me on the Bible and different subjects in the Bible, and about 8 o’clock he said he would treat me again. I laid down on a lounge and he sat down and put his hands over his face and was in that position may be ten or fifteen minutes; and all at once I felt it come right through me and it raised me up, and I sat on the lounge and I told him I had wakened up; and from that time on I had no more pain, only there was one or two minutes when I first got up and put my feet on the floor that the stiffness seemed to be hard for a few minutes. Now, during all this time I never lost a meal nor an hour’s sleep after that one treatment.

L. Bushnell testified that he was afflicted with a disease that baffled the skill of the physicians, who advised him if he could obtain assistance from scientists that he should try; that he then sought aid from them and a very short time afterwards was able to go about as usual and sawed wood for the people of the village in order to earn his livelihood ; that about three years prior to the time of giving his testimony he had fallen down a flight of stairs and had received serious injuries; that the defendant was sent for and visited him, and that he recovered without any other aid than that of the prayers of the defendant.

The witness Burgess testified of his serious illness from pneumonia, and that the defendant called on him and explained the Scripture to him and prayed for him, and that in a short time he recovered.

Mrs. Gibbs testified that in the previous January her [163]

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

Related

State v. Hueser
215 N.W. 643 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1927)
Carpenter v. State
184 N.W. 941 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1921)
Harvey v. State
148 N.W. 924 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1914)
People v. Cole
163 A.D. 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)
Singh v. State
146 S.W. 891 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1912)
State v. Johnson
114 P. 390 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1911)
State v. Smith
135 S.W. 465 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1911)
People v. Cole
25 N.Y. Crim. 350 (New York City Magistrates' Court, 1911)
Hazlitt v. State
93 N.E. 669 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)
State v. Marble
72 Ohio St. (N.S.) 21 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1905)
State v. Edmunds
101 N.W. 431 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
State v. Heath
125 Iowa 585 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1904)
State v. Wilcox
68 P. 634 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1902)
People v. Gordon
62 N.E. 858 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1902)
Kansas City v. Baird
92 Mo. App. 204 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)
State v. Paul
76 N.W. 861 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1898)
State v. Mylod
41 L.R.A. 428 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1898)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
24 L.R.A. 68, 58 N.W. 728, 40 Neb. 158, 1894 Neb. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buswell-neb-1894.