State v. Hathaway
Decision Date | 12 October 1891 |
Parties | The State v. Hathaway, Appellant |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Buchanan Criminal Court. -- Hon. Silas Woodson, Judge.
Reversed.
H. S Kelley and C. M. Napton for appellant.
(1) The court erred in overruling the motion to quash the indictment for the reason that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute any offense against the laws of the state -- did not charge the defendant with any offense. Being founded on a statute creating an offense unknown to the common law, the indictment must set forth all the constituent facts necessary to bring the accused fully within the provisions of the statute. State v. Gabriel, 88 Mo. 634. A clear substantive charge must be made. State v. Reaky, 62 Mo. 40; State v. Fisher, 58 Mo. 256; State v Flint, 62 Mo. 393; State v. Pinger, 57 Mo. 243; State v. Emerick, 87 Mo. 110; State v. Smith, 62 Mo. 92; State v. Little, 76 Mo. 372; State v. Sundheimer, 93 Mo. 311. The exceptions and provisos in the statute creating the offense were not properly negatived -- by showing that defendant did not fall within the exceptions or provisos in the statute. State v. Elam, 21 Mo.App. 290. (2) The court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment, because the indictment was insufficient -- failed to charge any offense against the defendant known to the law.
William E. Sherwood, Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.
The indictment, where objections are made, is in the language of the statute. It is not necessary to cite authorities to sustain this proposition. The indictment was not defective in any particular -- especially so as to "prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits." The court properly so ruled. R. S., sec. 4115, and authorities there cited. The indictment charges the defendant with being a practitioner of medicine, as defined by the law in question. The legislature had the power to define who should be held to be a practitioner of medicine. State v. Vandersluis, 43 N.W. 789, and cases there cited.
This cause was certified to this court for determination by the Kansas City court of appeals, for the reason that in the decision thereof a constitutional question is involved.
The defendant was indicted by the grand jury of Buchanan county at the June term, 1889. The indictment is as follows:
The defendant, at the November term, 1889, filed a motion to quash this indictment because, first, it did not state facts sufficient to...
To continue reading
Request your trial