Albrexstondare

Appellant’s petition to have the above-entitled causé heard and determined by this court after judgment in the district court of appeal is denied.

We neither approve nor disapprove the conclusion of that court that under the circumstances outlined in the opinion the members of the patient’s family would be accomplices if they had knowledge of the fact that the defendant did not have a license to practice medicine. We do not deem it necessary to express an opinion upon that question at this time.

Myers, C. J., Lawlor, J., Waste, J., and Shenk, J., concurred.

Lennon, J., and Seawell, J., concurred in the denial of the petition for hearing by this court.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of practicing a mode and system of treating the sick and afflicted without having a valid unrevoked certificate or license *342 from the board of medical examiners of the state of California so to do.

The evidence shows that two young women of different families were the subjects of defendant’s ministrations, and that he was actively assisted therein by the members of their respective families.

Many reasons are urged by appellant for a reversal of the judgment and the order denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Among them are the following:

The theory upon which each of such points is presented is that the several members of the family of the patient, having prior knowledge of the fact that defendant was not a licensed medical practitioner within this state, and they with such knowledge having co-operated with de *343 fendant in the treatment of the patient, these facts brought them within the rule that one who in any manner, knowingly and with criminal intent, aids and abets another in the commission of a criminal act is as guilty of the offense as is the person who actually commits it, and consequently that the members of the family…

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 341 Defendant was convicted of the crime of practicing a mode and system of treating the sick and afflicted without having a valid unrevoked certificate or license *Page 342 from the board of medical examiners of the state of California so to do. The evidence shows that two young women of different families were the subjects of defendant's ministrations, and that he was actively assisted therein by the members of their respective families. Many reasons are urged by appellant for a reversal of the judgment and the order denying defendant's motion for a new trial. Among them are the following: (1) That the court erred in its refusal to grant defendant's motion for a continuance of the trial of the action against him; and that because of such refusal defendant was unable to procure the attendance of certain witnesses who would have testified in effect that they told all the different members of the family of one of the said two patients of defendant that he (defendant) "was not a physician nor licensed to practice medicine; that he would not…