State v. Evertz

Citation190 S.W. 287
Decision Date06 December 1916
Docket NumberNo. 19468.,No. 19467.,19467.,19468.
PartiesSTATE v. EVERTZ (two cases).
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Calvin N. Miller, Judge.

Oscar Evertz was convicted of a misdemeanor, consisting of holding himself out as a physician and offering to treat the sick without a license, and he appeals. Transferred from the St. Louis Court of Appeals (181 S. W. 1055). Case ordered retransferred to the Court of Appeals.

Charles J. Maurer and W. A. Carter, both of St. Louis, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and Lee B. Ewing, Asst. Atty. Gen. (James V. Billings, of Jefferson City, of counsel), for the State.

WALKER, J.

The information herein is drawn upon section 8315, R. S. 1909, which charges a misdemeanor in that defendant treated the sick, or held himself out as a physician and offered to treat the sick, without a license. The only ground upon which this court can exercise jurisdiction in this case is that preserved in the defendant's motion for a new trial to the effect that the statute upon which this proceeding is based is in conflict with the state and federal Constitutions, in that it deprives the defendant of liberty, life, and property without due process of law.

Prior to the rendition of the verdict and the filing of defendant's motion for a new trial in the instant case, section 8315, supra, was carefully reviewed by this court in State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242, 135 S. W. 465, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 179, in which it was held, in a proceeding similar in all of its material features to that of the case at bar, that the statute was a proper exercise of the state's police power in the regulation of the public health, and hence did not violate either the state or federal Constitution. A like conclusion must therefore follow in the instant case.

Jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon this court by the introduction into the proceedings and saving in the record of a constitutional question when the same has heretofore been determined in a former case. State v. Campbell, 214 Mo. 362, 113 S. W. 1081; Richmond v. Creel, 253 Mo. 256, 161 S. W. 794; State v. Finley, 259 Mo. 422, 168 S. W. 921; Schmidt v. United Order, 259 Mo. 497, 168 S. W. 626.

From all of which it follows that this case must be transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals; and it is so ordered. All concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Ranson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1931
    ... ... apportionment, certification and levying of school and other ... taxes on the property of railroad companies. The decision in ... State ex rel. Gottlieb v. Metropolitan St. Ry. Co., ... 161 Mo. 188, in holding that the "dominant idea" of ... said act was the provision that street ... ...
  • Kansas City Public Service Co. v. Ranson
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 29, 1931
    ...though the court would decide otherwise were the question a new one. State ex rel. Union Electric Co. v. Baker, 316 Mo. 863; State v. Everett (Mo.), 190 S.W. 287; St. Louis Poster Advertising Co. v. St. Louis (Mo.), 195 S.W. 721; Coulter v. Construction Co., 131 Mo. App. 230; Kansas City v.......
  • McGrew Coal Company v. Mellon
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1926
    ... ... 1875, are in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the ... Constitution of the United States. 2 Elliott on Railroads, ... sec. 86; State ex rel. v. Railroad, 31 L. R. A. 47; ... Regan v. Loan Co., 154 U.S. 1014; Railroad v ... Minnesota, 134 U.S. 970. (3) Plaintiff's claim has ... former cases are no longer open. State v. Campbell, ... 214 Mo. 362; State v. Wild, 190 S.W. 273; State ... v. Evertz, 190 S.W. 287; State v. Campbell, 259 ... S.W. 430. "A constitutional question once decided is no ... longer open for consideration unless it ... ...
  • Hollowell v. Schuyler County
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1929
    ...Westhues v. Sullivan, 283 Mo. 575. And where the question has long before been settled in similar cases, it is a closed question. State v. Evertz, 190 S.W. 287. And court has treated it as a closed question, and considered it unnecessary to raise the question in the county court, and in cas......
  • 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