State v. Early, 17403.
| Citation | 49 S.W.2d 1060 |
| Decision Date | 23 May 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 17403.,17403. |
| Parties | STATE v. EARLY. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Brown Harris, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
C. Early was indicted for conducting a drug store without being licensed as a pharmacist and without having in charge a licensed pharmacist. At the close of all the testimony, the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence and dismissed the cause and discharged the defendant. From an order denying State's motion for new trial, the State appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Olney Burrus, Sp. Counsel, of Independence, for the State.
Mertsheimer & O'Donnell, of Kansas City, for respondent.
Defendant was indicted under section 13140 R. S. 1929, charging him with conducting and managing a drug store without being licensed as a pharmacist and without having in charge thereof a licensed pharmacist. At the close of all of the testimony the court sustained a demurrer to the evidence, dismissed the cause and discharged the defendant. The state filed a motion for a new trial on the following grounds:
The motion for a new trial was overruled. The state appealed and the circuit court allowed the appeal to the Supreme Court, thinking that there was a constitutional question involved, but that court transferred the cause here for lack of jurisdiction.
Neither party has favored us with a brief. Even were appeals allowed to the state under the circumstances of this case, the first two assignments of the motion for a new trial are either not sufficiently specific to require consideration by this court or do not set forth grounds that would justify us in interfering with the judgment of the trial court. Byrd v. Vanderburgh, 168 Mo. App. 112, 151 S. W. 184; State v. McGuire, 193 Mo. 215, 91 S. W. 939. The third and fourth grounds set forth in the motion for a new trial are not sufficiently specific.
We have examined the record in connection with the other assignment (No. 5) in the motion for a new trial and find...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barbata
...10, 14 and 16 raised in motion for new trial are not sufficiently specific to raise the points on appeal. Sec. 3735, R. S. 1929; State v. Early, 49 S.W.2d 1060; State v. Francis, 52 S.W.2d 552; State v. Vigus, 66 S.W.2d 854; State v. Maness, 19 S.W.2d 629; State v. Goodwin. 61 S.W.2d 960. (......
-
State v. Shawley
...12, 13 and 25 of defendant's motion for new trial are insufficient. Sec. 3735, R. S. 1929; State v. Standifer, 289 S.W. 856; State v. Early, 49 S.W.2d 1060; State Francis, 52 S.W.2d 552. (2) The court did not err in refusing defendant a new trial because of the selection and action of the g......
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours
...Wilks v. Caruthersville, 162 Mo.App. 492, 499; Ex parte Lerner, 218 S.W. 331, 333, 334; Sections 4142 and 4143, R. S. Mo. 1939; State v. Early, 49 S.W.2d 1060; State Hayes, 220 Mo. 1, 4. (a) It is not to be presumed that the State would (nor could it) delegate to a municipality a greater ri......
-
State v. Williams
...No. 1 and No. 4 in defendant's motion for new trial are insufficient. Sec. 3735, R. S. 1929; State v. Francis, 52 S.W.2d 553; State v. Early, 49 S.W.2d 1060; State Steelman, 300 S.W. 743; State v. Goldin, 51 S.W.2d 94. (2) There was sufficient evidence to connect the appellant with the crim......