JUDGEMENT
BENSON J.
In many respects this is a most unsatisfactory case and the convictions and sentences cannot be allowed to stand. The accused was charged on three counts; on the charge sheet the particulars of the offences are, as to the first two counts, “practising without having been registered. Section 20 of Cap. 69 " and the third count “fraud by false pretences. Section 293, Cap. 9." The particulars of offences as to the first two counts charge the accused that “not being registered or licensed under the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance did falsely assume the title of a Medical Practitioner and under such assumed character obtained the sum …etc."
I will refer to the third count later in this judgment. It is quite clear that the first two counts are bad for duplicity.
Under section 20 of the Medical Practitioners and Dentists Ordinance, c. 69, several distinct offences may be charged, but that must not be done under one count. It is one offence wilfully and falsely …