HAROLD W. DAVIS, Appellant,
THE ARIZONA STATE DENTAL BOARD and P. H. BENNETT, R. A. McCALL, F. W. BOVILLE, B. A. GLENNIE and J. L. BORAH, as Members of the Arizona State Dental Board, Appellees
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa, J. C. Niles, Judge. Judgment affirmed.
Messrs. Struckmeyer & Flynn, for Appellant.
Mr. Henderson Stockton, Mr. Eli Gorodezky, Mr. S. N. Karam and Mr. J. W. Cherry, Jr., for Appellees.
[57 Ariz. 257] LOCKWOOD, C.J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court of Maricopa county, on a writ of certiorari from an order of the Arizona State Dental Board, revoking the license of Harold W. Davis, plaintiff.
The first question for our consideration is a motion by the board to dismiss the action on the ground that certiorari to the superior court does not lie. We have considered the identical question in the case of Batty v. Arizona State Dental Board, ante, p. 239, 112 P.2d 870, and reaffirm the rule laid down therein. The motion to dismiss is denied, and we consider the appeal on its merits. There are five legal propositions raised thereby.
[57 Ariz. 258] The first is that chapter 24, session laws of Arizona, 1935, under which chapter these proceedings arose, requires the accusation made before the board to be in writing and "duly verified." We have examined the record and are of the opinion that the verification attached to the written charges is sufficient.
The next is that section 20 of chapter 24, supra, which sets up the particular facts for which a dental license may be revoked, was amended and repealed by chapter 54, session laws of 1939, and that the
charges filed against plaintiff are insufficient under the later law. Section 1-109, Arizona Code, 1939, reads as follows:
"Repealing act -- Effect on pending action or accrued right. -- No action or proceeding commenced before any repealing act takes effect, and no right accrued is affected by such repealing act, but proceedings therein shall conform to the new act so far as applicable."
The proceedings herein were commenced, the hearing before the board held, and its order made long before the act of 1939 went into effect. We are of the opinion that they are governed by the act of 1935 so far as the validity of the accusation is concerned.
The third question is as to the refusal by the board to grant a bill of particulars to plaintiff before the hearing. This involves a consideration of the record on this point. The ...