
    DURSTON et al. v. STATE.
    (No. 4718.)
    (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
    Jan. 30, 1918.)
    Indictment and Information &wkey;>124(4) — Joint Information.
    Prosecution for misdemeanor, under Pen. Code 1911, art. 756, for unlawfully practicing medicine without complying with article 750, requiring licenses, cannot be sustained under a joint charge against two defendants; the license being personal to the individual, and his practicing without obtaining it being a personal default, not one that he can commit in connection with another.
    Appeal from Johnson County Court; B. Tay Jackson, Judge.
    C. J. Durston and Nellie R. Fleming were convicted of a misdemeanor, and they appeal.
    Judgment reversed, and prosecution ordered dismissed.
    F. E. Johnson, of Cleburne, W. R. Booth, of Ft. Worth, and Morris & Hartwell, of Da Crosse, Wis., for appellants. ' E. B. Hendricks, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
   MORROW, J.

Appellants were each convicted of a misdemeanor, and each fined $50. They were charged under article 756, P. C., fiar unlawfully practicing medicine; that is to say, not complying with the requisites of the statute (article 750), with reference to obtaining a license.

The information charges the offense jointly against both appellants, and' its legality is challenged upon this ground. It is not criminal to practice medicine, but it is unlawful to do so for pay without obtaining a license. A license authorized is personal to the individual. His practicing without obtaining it is a personal default, not one that he can commit in connection with another, and the prosecution for the default cannot be sustained under a joint charge.

The exact question has not been reviewed in this state, so far as we have learned. It was passed upon by the Court of Appeals-in Missouri in the case of State v. Hendricks, reported in 187 S. W. 272, involving an indictment charging the same offense, in the same manner as that involved here, and for cogent reasons and upon full citation of authorities, the indictment was held bad. Other authorities sustaining the principle are State v. Wainwright, 60 Ark. 280, 29 S. W. 981; State v. Hall, 97 N. C. 474, 1 S. E. 683; Maull v. State, 37 Ala. 160; Chowning v. State, 91 Ark. 503, 121 S. W. 735, 18 Ann. Cas. 529; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. 617, 36 L. Ed. 429; Walker v. Commonwealth, 162 Ky. 111, 172 S. W. 109; Townsend v. State, 137 Ala. 91, 34 South. 382. Following the authorities cited, we are constrained to hold that the court was in error in refusing to quash the information.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed. 
      <&wkey;>For other oases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numhered Digests and Indexes
     