Vermillion

Appellant was convicted of having practiced a system and mode of treating the sick and afflicted without possessing a certificate issued by the state board of medical examiners entitling him so to do. The supreme court of this state, in the cases of People v. Jordan, 172 Cal. 391 , [ 156 Pac. 451 ], and People v. Ratledge, 172 Cal. 401 , [ 156 Pac. 455 ], has decided adversely to appellant’s contentions, as to the main questions raised upon this appeal, and upon the authority of those decisions the judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be affirmed.

The added contention not considered in the cases cited, to wit, that appellant could not be properly convicted unless it were shown that he charged a fee for his services, we think must be decided against him. The statute under which the prosecution was had makes it unlawful for a person to practice any art of healing without having first obtained a certificate from the medical board, and we think the act is intended to and does cover such practice whether the service is gratuitous or not. However, it was shown in evidence by the defendant’s own testimony that he had engaged in the practice of a healing art,…