State v. Carlstrom
Decision Date | 20 May 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 4767.,4767. |
Citation | 28 S.W.2d 691 |
Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, APPELLANT, v. GRAYDON CARLSTROM, RESPONDENT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Dunklin County. — Hon. W.S.C. Walker, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
James V. Billings, Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and A.B. Lovan, Assistant Attorney-General for appellant.
(1) An osteopath is not a physician and surgeon and not authorized to prescribe and dispense drugs and medicines as a physician and surgeon, and it is a violation of law for an osteopath to prescribe, dispense and administer drugs and medicine. Sections 7334, 7330, 7332, R.S. 1919; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242; Grainger v. Still, 187 Mo. 197, l.c. 224; LeGrand v. Security Benefit Ass'n, 240 S.W. l.c. 854; Atkinson v. School of Osteopathy, 240 Mo. 338, l.c. 353; State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St. 289; State v. Liffring, 61 Ohio St. 39; Ex parte Collins, 121 S.W. (Tex.) 501; Bragg v. State, 134 Ala. l.c. 170-1; Nelson v. State Board of Health, 108 Ky. l.c. 777; State v. McKnight, 131 N.C. l.c. 721; State v. Water (N.J.), 143 Atl. 749. (2) The qualifications of an osteopath are entirely different from that of a physician and surgeon. Sections 9202, 9204, R.S. 1919, and authorities above cited. (3) A demurrer does not admit conclusions of law. (4) The term "as taught and practiced in the American School of Osteopathy" is ejusdem generis to the general term of the "system, method or science of treating the human body commonly known as Osteopathy." Sec. 9202, R.S. 1919; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242; Atkinson v. School of Osteopathy, 240 Mo. 338, l.c. 353; State v. Wade, 267 Mo. l.c. 257; State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St. 289. The term and "such other subjects as the board may require" is ejusdem generis with Osteopathy, and includes no pathology other than Osteopathy Pathology, and does not include nor authorize an examination upon subjects of materia medica. (5) Section 9204, R.S. 1919; State v. Wade, 267 Mo. 249, l.c. 257; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242; Grainger v. Still, 187 Mo. 197; Atkinson v. School of Osteopathy, 240 Mo. 338; State v. Gravett, 65 Ohio St. 289; State v. Liffring, 61 Ohio St. 39.
Orville Zimmerman for respondent.
(1) Osteopathy is a distinct system, method or science of treating diseases of the human body, from the system known as practice of medicine and surgery under Article 1 of Chapter 65 of Revised Statutes 1919, and an osteopath, while not being a "physician and surgeon," as that term is used in Article 1 of Chapter 65, Revised Statutes 1919, is an "osteopathic physician and surgeon." Section 9292, R.S. 1919; Section 9206, R.S. 1919; Sections 7330, 7331, and 7332, R.S. 1919; Grainger v. Still, 187 Mo. 197, l.c. 224; Atkinson v. School of Osteopathy, 240 Mo. 338, l.c. 353; Laws 1927, p. 361; Bruer v. Woolworth (Col.), 22 Fed. (2 S.) 577; Waldoe v. Poe (Col.), 14 Fed. (2 Series) 749, l.c. 753; People ex rel. Gage v. Simon, 278 Ill. 256; Boudell v. Dept. of Health, 193 N.H. 132. (2) There is no statutory restriction in this State upon the issuance and use of drugs by osteopathic physicians and surgeons in the treatment of diseases of their patients according to the method and system known as Osteopathy and as taught and practiced by the American School of Osteopathy of Kirksville, Missouri, and an offense will not be created by implication. Laws 1897, p. 206; Section 9202, R.S. 1919; State v. Bartley, 263 S.W. l.c. 96; State v. Jaeger, 63 Mo. l.c. 409; Laws 1927, p. 361; Catalog of American School of Osteopathy, 1899 and 1900 (pp. 5, 7, 18, 20, 21). (3) The American School of Osteopathy at Kirksville was the parent school of this science of healing and it is manifest that the intention of Legislature was to make the standard of that school the standard for osteopathy in Missouri. The clause "as taught and practiced in the American School of Osteopathy at Kirksville, Missouri," is merely explanatory of what osteopathy shall be in Missouri. The doctrine of ejusdem generis has no application. Section 9202, R.S. 1919; Bank v. Ripley, 161 Mo. 126, l.c. 131-132; Davis v. Roberts, 206 Mo. App. l.c. 131; Trust Co. v. Elza, 286 S.W. l.c. 377; Cades v. Lumber Co., 291 S.W. l.c. 180; Corona Coal Co. v. U.S., 21 Fed. (2 S.) l.c. 491. (4) The evident intention of the Legislature was to enable the Board of Examiners to examine applicants in the named subjects in osteopathy and in any other subjects in osteopathy the board might require for a license to practice. Any other construction of the statute would place the board in a straight-jacket and forever limit the examination of applicants to practice osteopathy to the specified subjects. Bank v. Ripley, 161 Mo. l.c. 131, 132; Davis v. Roberts, 206 Mo. App. l.c. 131; Trust Co. v. Elza, 286 S.W. l.c. 377; Cades v. Lumber Co., 291 S.W. l.c. 180; Corona Coal Co. v. U.S., 21 Fed. (2d S.) l.c. 491; 36 Cyc., p. 1119.
James M. Johnson, Amicus Curiae.
This is a case where the defendant, an osteopath, is charged with practicing medicine, to-wit: Issuing prescriptions for drugs, and medicines, without license to practice medicine, the charge being that of violating section 7334, Revised Statutes 1919.
On the 8th day of July, 1929, the prosecuting attorney of Dunklin County filed his amended information, against the defendant, which omitting caption and verification, is as follows:
Thereafter, on the 11th day of July, 1929, the defendant filed his verified plea in abatement, which omitting caption and verification is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- State v. Carlstrom
-
Hall v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Company
... ... 340; Kennedy v. Railroad, 36 Mo. 351, l.c. 365; Carmody v. Transit Co., 122 Mo. App. l.c. 349; Hoffman v. Gill, 102 Mo. App. l.c. 325; State ex rel. McClendon v. Jungling, 116 Mo. 162, l.c. 165; Berlin v. Thompson, 61 Mo. App. 241; McKeon v. Railroad, 42 Mo. 79 ... Barton ... ...
-
Stribling v. Jolley
...courts has been sought to determine the question. Previous cases, doubtlessly intended to accomplish that result, were State v. Carlstrom, 224 Mo.App. 439, 28 S.W.2d 691, and State v. Reisman, 225 Mo.App. 637, 37 S.W.2d 675. These were both prosecutions against osteopaths in which they were......