Anderson

The case was on the January calendar for oral argument, but no one appeared to represent appellant. His counsel, however, had communicated with the clerk of this court asking a reasonable time in which to file a written argument. By an order of court he was granted ten days for that purpose. More than thirty days have expired and no brief has been filed. However, we have examined the record and find no érror therein. It was charged in the information that the defendant “on or about the fifth day of December, 1921 . . . did then and there willfully, wrongfully and unlawfully practice, attempt to practice and advertise and hold himself out as practicing a system or mode of treating the sick and afflicted in this state without having at the time of so doing a .valid unrevolced certificate from the State Board of Medical Examiners of the State of California.” The offense was sufficiently described in contemplation of section 17 of the State Medical Practice Act (Stats. 1917, p. 114), and the evidence was sufficient to justify the conviction. Indeed, at the time judgment was pronounced, the learned counsel for appellant admitted that his client had practiced his system of treatment…