Foster v. Missouri Com'n for Blind

• Decision Date: 31 March 1931
• Docket Number: 27278
• Citation: 37 S.W.2d 450,327 Mo. 416
• Parties: Catherine Foster v. Missouri Commission for the Blind, Plaintiff in Error
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

37 S.W.2d 450

327 Mo. 416

Catherine Foster v. Missouri Commission for the Blind, Plaintiff in Error

No. 27278

Supreme Court of Missouri

March 31, 1931

Transferred from Springfield Court of Appeals.

Affirmed.

L. E Dewey for plaintiff in error.

This claimant on the face of the evidence given at the trial in the circuit court is not entitled to a pension.Her case comes within the original interpretation of the blind statute and the rule laid down therein by this court in the case of Shelley v. Missouri Commission for the Blind,274 S.W. 688.There are four grades of vision according to scientific experts of the eye, and they are as follows: (a) Light perception.(b) Light projection.(c) Distinguishing motion.(d) Distinguishing form.Fuch's Text Book of Ophthalmology translated by Duane;Shelley v. Missouri Commission for the Blind, supra.

OPINION

Ragland J.

This case comes to the writer on reassignment.On June 13, 1924, the Circuit Court of Newton County, on an appeal from the action of the Missouri Commission for the Blind rejecting the application of Catherine Foster for a pension, adjudged and decreed that she be awarded a certificate entitling her to be placed on the blind pension roll, and that her pension commence as of date July 25, 1923.Thereafter, and on June 6, 1925, the Missouri Commission for the Blind sued out of the Springfield Court of Appeals a writ of error on such judgment.At its October Term next following, that court transferred the cause to this court, on the ground that it was without jurisdiction thereof.Defendant in error, Catherine Foster, never made any appearance in this court, but in the course of his argument of the cause, counsel for the plaintiff in error stated that Catherine Foster died on the second day of January, 1925.The statement was thereupon taken as and for a suggestion of the death of the defendant in error, and the cause was continued.At the second term thereafter Lizzie Wass, administratrix of Catherine Foster, deceased, entered her voluntary appearance and asked that the cause be revived in her name as such administratrix, and by agreement of parties that was done.

The proceeding under review was initiated under, and its disposition must be governed by, the act providing pensions for the deserving blind, as passed in 1923.[Laws 1923, pp. 302 et seq.]In 1925, Section 9 of the act was repealed and a new section enacted in lieu of it.[Laws 1925, pp. 316-17; now Sec. 8901, R. S. 1929.]Under its provision any person aggrieved by the action of the commission for the blind may appeal to the circuit court, where a trial de novo shall be had "and the judgment rendered thereupon shall be final."In other words such judgments are not now reviewable on appeal or writ of error.But as the writ of error in this case was sued out before the Act of 1925 went into effect, it must be proceeded with in all respects in accordance with the law as it stood prior to the change.[Sec. 658, R. S. 1929.]

There is involved in this proceeding the amount of a statutory pension for the blind from the date of its award as fixed by the circuit court, to-wit, July 25, 1923, to the date of Catherine Foster's death, January 2, 1925.Our jurisdiction grows out of the fact that the members of the commission for the blind are state officers.[Shelley v. Commission, etc.,274 S.W. 688.]

The pertinent provisions of the Act of 1923 are found in Section 2(amended in important respects in 1925) which is as follows:

"No person shall be entitled to a pension under this act who has vision with or without proper adjusted glasses greater than what is known as light perception; and no person shall be entitled to receive a pension except upon scientific vision test supported by the certificate of a competent oculist, approved by the commission, that such person does not possess a greater vision than that provided above in this section; and every person passing the vision test and having the other qualifications provided in this act shall be entitled to receive a pension of three hundred ($ 300) dollars per annum, payable quarterly."[Laws 1923, pp. 303-04.]

The only question involved in this proceeding is whether the circuit court's finding, that Catherine Foster, upon scientific vision test, did not possess a greater vision than what is known as light perception, was supported by substantial evidence.

On the hearing in the circuit courtplaintiff in error read the affidavit of Dr. Everett Powers, an oculist, which had been presented to the commission for the blind by Catherine Foster in connection with her application for a pension.The affidavit so far as pertinent here was as follows:

"1.Is the applicant totally blind and absolutely unable to distinguish between ordinary daylight and darkness?

"In right eye?Yes.In left eye?No.

"2.If not, can the applicant see:

"(a) The direction of motion of a hand at one foot?

"With right eye?No.With left eye?Yes.

"(b) Can the applicant count fingers at one foot?

"With right eye?No.With left eye?No.

"(c) Can the applicant recognize any letters?

"If so, give size of letter read or designation of letter from Snellen Test Types, also giving the greatest distance at which such letter can be made out.

"With right eye?No.With left eye?No."

Plaintiff in error also called Dr. W. B. Post, an oculist, who testified:

"Q.Now, you have just made some...