State v. Burk
| Decision Date | 03 October 1893 |
| Citation | 56 N.W. 180,88 Iowa 661 |
| Parties | STATE v. BURK. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Davis county; J. C. Mitchell, Judge.
The defendant was charged by indictment as follows: “The said Joshua Burk, on the 7th day of September, A. D. 1891, in the county and state aforesaid, did then and there sell and vend liniments, nostrums, ointments, and other drugs to one Asa Hale, the said Joshua Burk then and there being an itinerant vender of said drugs and nostrums, and did then and there publicly profess to said Asa Hale, to whom he then and there sold said drugs and nostrums, that the said drugs and nostrums then and there sold would cure diseases, injuries, and deformities, the said Joshua Burk then and there not being licensed as an itinerant vender of drugs, nostrums, and ointments, as required by statute.” Defendant having pleaded not guilty, the case was tried to a jury, and a verdict of guilty returned. Defendant's motion for a new trial being overruled, judgment was entered on the verdict, from which defendant appeals.McCrary & Craig and Eichelberger & Taylor, for appellant.
John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Payne & Sowers, for the State.
1. This prosecution is under section 10, c. 75, Acts 18th Gen. Assem., as amended in section 2, c. 137, Acts 19th Gen. Assem., and section 3, c. 83, Acts 21st Gen. Assem. The section, as amended, provides as follows: McClain's Code, § 2532. It appeared without question on the trial that, at and for several years prior to the time charged, the defendant was in the employ of S. F. Baker & Co., manufacturers of proprietary medicines at Keokuk, Iowa; that he traveled with a team and wagon, carrying the medicines manufactured by said company, and selling the same from house to house to whomsoever would purchase. The defendant did not hold himself out as a physician, nor assume to determine what the ailments of people were, but he did distribute printed circulars, issued by Baker & Co., representing their medicines to be cures for certain diseases named in the circulars, and the defendant represented that the medicines were as recommended. Section 12 of said Acts of the Eighteenth General Assembly provided that that act should not apply to the sale of proprietary medicines. Said section was amended by section 4 of said Acts of the Nineteenth General Assembly by adding the following words: “Manufactured in the state when same are sold and distributed by agents from an established place of business.” Said section 12, as amended, was repealed by section 4 of said Acts of the Twenty–First General Assembly, and the following enacted in lieu thereof: Appellant contends that said section 12, as originally enacted, is not repealed, but only the amendment thereto made by the Acts of the Nineteenth General Assembly, and therefore the act does not apply to the sale of proprietary medicines. The repeal is not of the amendment alone, but expressly of said section 12, “as amended.” It is entirely clear, under this view of the law and the undisputed facts, that the defendant was amenable to pay the license provided, and, if he did not do so, was guilty of the misdemeanor charged.
2. Appel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Teachers Assn. v. San Diego Community College Dist.
...members of the legislative body are not admissible for the purpose of showing what in fact was intended or meant by an act. (State v. Burk, 88 Iowa 661, 56 N.W. 180; Richmond v. Supervisors, 83 Va. 204, 2 S.E. 26; People v. Smith, 78 Hun. 179, 28 N.Y.S. 912.)' In People v. Stanley (1924), 1......
- State v. Burk