
    (86 Tex. Cr. R. 253)
    BLACK v. STATE.
    (No. 5456.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Nov. 19, 1919.)
    1. Physicians and surgeons <§=»6(1) — Un-ía wful PRACTICE OP MEDICINE.
    One who maintained offices where he treated any and aU persons who might apply to him, for various and sundry disorders and diseases, without registering with the district clerk in the manner and form provided by Vernon’s Ann. Pen. Code 1916, tit. 12, c. 6, art. 755, was unlawfuEy practicing medicine, whether or not he claimed to be a physician or a practitioner of medicine.
    2. Indictment and information <@=>125(20) —Pleading statutory oppenses conjunc-tively.
    Where there are various ways set forth in a statute by which an offense may be committed, an indictment may charge the various methods conjunctively.
    Appeal from El Paso County Court; E. B. McClintock, Judge.
    Byron L. Black was convicted of unlawfuEy practicing medicine, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Alvin M. Owsley, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   LATTIMORE, J.

This appellant was in-' dieted and convicted in the county court-of El Paso county, Tex., of unlawfuEy practicing medicine, and punished by a fine of $250 and one day in jail.

In 1907, the Legislature passed an act, making it unlawful for any one to practice medicine upon human beings in this state, without registering with the district clerk in the manner and form provided by said act, the same being chapter 6, tit. 12, of Vernon’s Penal Code. By the terms of article 755 of said chapter is defined what is meant by “practicing medicine” within the proscription of said statute. Subdivision 2 of said last-named article is as follows:

“(2) Or who shall treat, or offer to treat, any disease or disorder, mental or physical, or any physical deformity or injury, by any system or method or to effect cures thereof, and charge therefor, directly or indirectly, money or other compensation.”

This act has often been before this court, for construction. It has been held constitutional both by this court and the Supreme Court of the United States. Ex parte Collins, 57 Tex. Cr. R. 2, 121 S. W. 501; Collins v. State, 223 U. S. 288, 32 S. Ct. 286, 56 L. Ed. 439.

It has been held to apply to a masseur. Milling v. State, 67 Tex. Cr. R. 551, 150 S. W. 434. Also to an osteopath. Ex parte Collins, supra. Also to one who claimed to cure by means of laying on of hands and prayer. Singh v. State, 66 Tex. Cr. R. 156, 146 S. W. 891 — and this wholly regardless of whether such persons claimed to be physicians and practitioners of medicine or not.

It is entirely undisputed in this record that appellant had and maintained offices where he treated any and all persons, who might apply to him, for various and sundry disorders and diseases, for compensation; and that he had not registered with the district clerk of El Paso county, as required by the provisions of said chapter 6, supra. The particular act and treatment charged in the instant case was fully established as alleged.

The complaints of appellant that the information is insufficient are not sustained by an examination of that instrument, which follows almost literally the language of the statute in both counts. Where there are various ways set forth in a statute by which an offense may be committed,- if the pleader desires to allege more than one of such ways, it is proper that the various methods be charged conjunctively.

The special charge, as. asked for, was properly refused. The, provisions of subdivision 2, art. 755, supra, are broad enough to comprehend and forbid the practice by appellant of the acts testified about. With the wisdom or unwisdom of such law, we have nothing to do. It is on our statute book's. It has evidently been violated, and this court, has no option but to declare tbe law as it is written by tbe Legislature and as we find it.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 
      ®=»For other cases see same topic and KEYrNUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests,and Indexes
     