Knowles v. State

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The record in this case shows that the appellant was indicted and convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City for unlawfully practising dentistry, without having obtained from the State Board of Dental Examiners a certificate authorizing him to practise, as required by the Act of 1896, chap. 378. The question presented on the appeal involves a construction of this Act, and arises upon a bill of exception taken to the ruling of the Court in rejecting as evidence a certificate of qualification and registration issued by the Board of Dental Examiners of the State of Ohio. The Act of 1896 declares that it shall be unlawful for any person to practise dentistry in the State of Maryland without first obtaining a certificate as provided by the Act.

And by section 12 of the same Act certain classes of persons are excepted from its operation. This section provides that nothing in this Article shall be so construed as to interfere with the rights and privileges of resident physicians and surgeons, or with persons holding certificates issued to them prior to the passage of this Act, and dental students operating under the immediate supervisions of their instructors in dental infirmaries or dental schools chartered by the General Assembly of Maryland. Now it is admitted that the appellant did not have a certificate from the Maryland State Board of Dental Examin ²⁰⁶ ers authorizing him to practise, but it is contended that he is within the exception of section 12 of the Act, in that he holds a certificate duly issued to him by the Dental Board of the State of Ohio. Whether he can be considered to be