State v. Buis
| Decision Date | 08 October 1910 |
| Docket Number | 17,056 |
| Citation | 83 Kan. 273,111 P. 189 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF KANSAS, Appellant, v. LEMUEL BUIS, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided July, 1910.
Appeal from Elk district court.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Fred S Jackson, attorney-general, John Marshall, assistant attorney-general, Charles D. Shukers, special assistant attorney-general, and Frank Organ, county attorney, for the appellant.
The defendant was arrested upon an information charging him with a violation of sections 8090 and 8091 of the General Statutes of 1909. The information was quashed by the district court on the motion of the defendant. The state appeals.
Section 8091, so far as it concerns the present case, reads as follows:
"Any person who shall practice medicine and surgery or osteopathy in the state of Kansas without having received and had recorded a certificate under the provisions of this act . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor." (Laws 1901, ch. 254, § 7.)
Section 8090, so far as it concerns the information in this case, reads as follows:
"Any person shall be regarded as practicing medicine and surgery within the meaning of this act who shall prescribe, or who shall recommend for a fee, . . . or any person attempting to treat the sick or others afflicted with bodily or mental infirmities, or any person representing or advertising himself by any means or through any medium whatsoever, or in any manner whatsoever, so as to indicate he is authorized to or does practice medicine or surgery in this state, or that he is authorized to or does treat the sick or others afflicted with bodily infirmities." (Laws 1908, ch. 63, § 1.)
The information, which contained three counts, follows the language of the statute, and this is all that is required where the statute creates the offense and sets out the facts which constitute it. (The State v. Foster, 30 Kan 365, 2 P. 628; The State v. Bellamy, 63 Kan. 144, 65 P. 274; The State v. Seely, 65 Kan. 185, 69 P. 163.) There are a number of exceptions named in section 8090. If it be contended that the information is defective because it failed to negative these exceptions the point is not well taken. It is only necessary to negative those exceptions which are contained in the same clause of the act which creates the offense. (The State of Kansas v. Thompson, 2 Kan. 432; City of Kansas City v. Garnier, 57 Kan. 412, 46 P. 707; The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers
...they are being charged? The offense is charged substantially in the words of the statute. This has been held sufficient. State v. Buis, 83 Kan. 273, 111 P. 189; State Glenn Lumber Co., 83 Kan. 399, 111 P. 484; State v. Custer, 85 Kan. 445, 116 P. 507. It will be seen two types of compensati......
-
State v. Allen
... ... 106; Junction City v. Keeffe, 40 Kan. 275, 19 ... P. 735; The State v. Rook, 61 Kan. 382, 59 P. 653; ... The State v. Bowles, 70 Kan. 821, 79 P. 726; The ... State v. Campbell, 70 Kan. 899, 79 P. 1133; The ... State v. Campbell, 70 Kan. 900, 79 P. 1133; The ... State v. Buis, 83 Kan. 273, 111 P. 189; The ... State v. Lumber Co., 83 Kan. 399, 111 P. 484; ... The State v. Railway Co., 96 Kan. 609, 628, 152 P ... 777.) An appeal by the state has been sustained where ... judgment for costs has been assessed against the county, and ... the name of the ... ...
-
Lowery v. State
...Ind. 1, 85 N. E. 715; Regadanz v. State, 171 Ind. 387, 86 N. E. 449; Walters v. State, 174 Ind. 545, 92 N. E. 537. Kansas. — State v. Buis, 83 Kan. 273, 111 Pac. 189; State v. Belle Springs Creamery Co., 83 Kan. 389, 111 Pac. 474, L. R. A. 1915D, 515. Kentucky. — Commonwealth v. McNutt, 133......
-
King v. Millhaubt
...Thompson, 2 Kan. 432; City of Kansas City v. Garnier, 57 Kan. 412, 46 P. 707; The State v. Thurman, 65 Kan. 90, 68 P. 1081; The State v. Buis, 83 Kan. 273, 111 P. 189.) Does the judgment in favor of Richard Wilson and against Sarah A. King bind the plaintiff in this action? The property in ......