Kahn v. State Board of Examiners of Optometry

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This appeal is from an order passed on Decebmer 31st, 1931, dismissing a petition for a writ of mandamus to re■quire the State Board of Examiners in Optometry to issue to the petitioner a license to practice optometry in the State •of Maryland. The sole question involved arises under sections 321 and 323 of article 43 of the Code. By the Act of 1914, ch. 652, sec. 8 (now Code, art. 43, sec. 318), it was provided that every person not practicing •optometry on April 13th, 1914, desiring to begin practice in this state, should pass an examination before said board.

The appellant came within the exempted class, and received ■a certificate of registration without an examination. By section 321 of said article, it is provided that every ⁶⁶⁹ registered optometrist who desires to continue to practice shall pay an annual registration fee not to exceed the sum of five dollars per annum, for which he shall receive a renewal receipt; and that “should any optometrist fail to make application for a renewal of registration he shall be notified that his certificate of registration will be revoked within thirty days after such notification, and if he fails to pay the annual fee before the expiration of the time mentioned in said notice said board may at once proceed to revoke said certificate of registration.” According to the agreed statement of facts in the record, appellant practiced up to September 30th, 1925, upon which date his renewal certificate expired; that on December 17 th, 1925, his license was revoked for nonpayment of license fees; that in the year 1927 he applied for reinstatement of his license and offered to pay the annual fees for the period during which his license had been revoked; that the board refused to issue to him a new license unless and until he should pass a satisfactory practical examination to be conducted by said board, which examination it offered to give him, but he declined to take any examination, and claimed the right to reinstatement without examination. Section 323 of said article of the Oode provides that the board may revoke any certificate of registration or examination granted by. it “because of wilful misrepresentation, illegal practice, conviction of crime, whether in this state or elsewhere, habitual drunkenness for six months preceding the charge, gross incompetency to practice optometry, the employment of other persons as solicitors of business, obtaining any fee by fraud or misrepresentation, employing directly or indirectly any person other than the holder of a certificate of registration or examination granted in accordance with the provisions of this sub-title, to1 perform any act for which such certificate is required, making use of or authorizing any advertisement containing untruthful or misleading statements, or any other unprofessional conduct; and the board may refuse to grant a certificate to any person guilty of fraud in passing the examination or guilty at any time of felony or ⁶⁷⁰ gross immorality or addicted to the liquor or drug habit to such a degree as to render him unfit to' practice the profession of optometry; but no certificate shall be revoked nor refused unless written charges have been filed against the accused in person, and at least ten days’ written notice of the time and place of the hearing thereon, which shall be public, served upon the accused, and he be given an opportunity to confront the witness against him, offer testimony in his own behalf and be heard in person or by counsel. * * * Any certificate which shall have been revoked may in the discretion of said board be reissued after six months from the date of its revocation, provided