State v. Blair

• Decision Date: 10 October 1894
• Citation: State v. Blair, 92 Iowa 28, 60 N.W. 486 (Iowa 1894)
• Parties: STATE v. BLAIR.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

92 Iowa 28

60 N.W. 486

STATE

v.BLAIR.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 10, 1894.

Appeal from district court, Monroe county; W. D. Tisdale, Judge.

Indictment for publicly professing to treat diseases while an itinerant vender of drugs, nostrums, etc., without licenses. The district court sustained a demurrer to the indictment, and the state appealed.John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., N. E. Kendall, and J. C. Mabry, for the State.

Liston McMillen, for appellee.

GRANGER, C. J.

The indictment is as follows: “The grand jury of the county of Monroe, in the name and by the authority of the state of Iowa, accuse W. M. Blair of the crime of violating the pharmacy law, committed as follows: The said defendant, W. M. Blair, on the 1st day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-two, in Monroe county, being then and there an itinerant vender of drugs, nostrums, ointments, and appliances intended for the treatment of diseases and injuries, did unlawfully and willfully, by printing, writing, and other methods, publicly profess to treat and cure diseases, injuries, and deformities, by drugs, nostrums, manipulations, and other expedients; the said defendant not having a license as such itinerant vender, nor having paid therefor, as required by law, contrary to the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state of Iowa.”

1. It is said by appellee that an appeal will not lie because there is no judgment. The record shows that the demurrer to the indictment was sustained, and it was “ordered that the defendant be discharged, and the sureties on his bond be relieved and exonerated from liability as such bondsmen.” We regard that as a judgment. An action was pending; an issue was made, tried, and determined; and the adjudication was final in that proceeding. Every final adjudication of the rights of the parties in an action is a judgment. Code, § 2849. The fact that under certain conditions the district court could have remanded the case to the grand jury for further action does not affect the conclusion. It was not so remanded, and the judgment became final.

2. It is urged that the indictment is defective, because the facts constituting the offense are not pleaded. The indictment is laid under the provisions of chapter 75, Acts 18th Gen. Assem. It is there provided: “Any itinerant vendor of any drug, nostrum, ointment or appliance of any kind, intended for the treatment of diseases or injury, who shall, by writing or printing, or any other method, publicly profess to treat diseases, or injury or deformity, by any drugs, nostrum, manipulation, or other expedient, shall pay a license of one hundred dollars per annum. ...