State v. Emonds

Decision Date29 July 1919
Docket Number15236.
Citation182 P. 584,107 Wash. 688
CourtWashington Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. EMONDS.

Department 1.

Appeal from Superior Court, King County; A. W. Frater, Judge.

W. G Emonds was convicted of issuing a prescription for intoxicating liquor after he had been twice convicted of unlawfully issuing such prescriptions, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Edward H. Chavelle and Jas. A. Dougan, both of Seattle, for appellant.

Fred C Brown and T. H. Patterson, both of Seattle, for the State.

MAIN J.

The defendant, a regularly licensed physician, was charged by the information with the crime of issuing a prescription for intoxicating liquor after he had been twice convicted of unlawfully issuing such prescriptions. The trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. From the judgment entered on the verdict the appeal is prosecuted.

Section 8 of initiative measure No. 3, Laws of 1915, p. 6, among other things, provides that it shall be unlawful for a physician, after he has been convicted a second time of a violation of any of the provisions of the act, to thereafter write any prescription for the furnishing, delivery, or sale of intoxicating liquor.

Prior to being charged in this case the appellant had been convicted three times of issuing prescriptions for intoxicating liquor when he had no good reason to believe that the persons to whom such prescriptions were issued were actually sick and that the liquor was required as a medicine.

The appellant first claims that the legislative power of the state, whether by initiative measure or an act passed by the Legislature, could not deprive a regularly licensed physician of the right or privilege of prescribing intoxicating liquor as a medicine, if he believed the patient's condition required it. It is admitted that for such offenses as that with which the appellant is here charged it would have been proper to have deprived him of the right to practice medicine entirely.

No constitutional provision is called to our attention which it is claimed the law here assailed violates. No authority has been presented which holds that the court may declare a legislative act invalid when it does not offend against some constitutional provision. The limitations upon the legislative power must be found, if at all, in constitutional enactments, and not in the judgment or discretion of the courts. The law complained of was a valid exercise of legislative power.

The appellant also objects to an instruction given by the trial court in submitting the cause to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Gruen v. State Tax Commission
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • November 5, 1949
    ...... our fundamental law. In other words, a statute cannot be. judicially declared beyond the power of the legislature to. enact unless in conflict with some specific or definite. provision of the constitution. State v. Emonds, 107. Wash. 688, 182 P. 584. . . The. legislature may legally enact any law not expressly or. inferentially prohibited by our state constitution, the. constitution being a limitation, not a grant of power. Walker v. Spokane, 62 Wash. 312, ......
  • Gruen v. State Tax Commission, 31083.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • November 5, 1949
    ...the power of the legislature to enact unless in conflict with some specific or definite provision of the constitution. State v. Emonds, 107 Wash. 688, 182 P. 584. The legislature may legally enact any law not expressly or inferentially prohibited by our state constitution, the constitution ......
  • State ex rel. Livingston v. Ayer, 29691.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 24, 1945
    ...... fundamental law. In other words, a statute cannot be. judicially declared beyond the power of the legislature to. enact unless in conflict with some specific or definite. provisions of the constitution. State v. Emonds, 107. Wash. 688, 182 P. 584. . . The. legislature may enact any law not expressly or inferentially. prohibited by the constitution, the constitution being a. limitation and not a grant of power. Walker v. City of. Spokane, 62 Wash. 312, 113 ......
  • State ex rel. Heavey v. Murphy, 67692-5.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • August 26, 1999
    ...the constitution." Gruen v. Washington State Tax Comm'n, 35 Wash.2d 1, 7, 211 P.2d 651 (1949) (emphasis added) (citing State v. Emonds, 107 Wash. 688, 182 P. 584 (1919)), overruled on other grounds by State ex rel. Wash. State Fin. Comm. v. Martin, 62 Wash.2d 645, 384 P.2d 833 (1963). Heave......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT