State v. Humfeld
| Decision Date | 09 December 1913 |
| Parties | STATE v. HUMFELD. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Franklin County; R. A. Breuer, Judge.
William C. Humfeld was convicted of a misdemeanor, and he appeals. Case ordered transferred to the St. Louis Court of Appeals for determination.
Jesse H. Schaper, of Washington, Mo., and Morris & Hartwell, of La Crosse, Wis., for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen., and W. T. Rutherford, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of a misdemeanor, in the circuit court of Franklin county, on an information charging him with a violation of section 8315, R. S. 1909, regulating the practice of medicine and surgery. The case is brought here on appeal on the ground that a constitutional question is involved, the manner in which this question was raised was by a motion to quash the information, and no effort was made thereafter to preserve the question in the record.
It has been held in a number of cases that a motion to quash an indictment or information is no part of the record proper, and the error of the court in overruling same must be preserved in the bill of exceptions. State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112, 97 S. W. 574; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 202, 91 S. W. 942; State v. Tooker, 188 Mo. 438, 87 S. W. 487.
A later case directly in point holds that where the record on appeal from a conviction for a misdemeanor shows that no constitutional question was raised save by a motion to quash the indictment, and defendant in his motion for a new trial does not call the attention of the trial court to the alleged error in overruling the motion to quash, no constitutional question is presented, and the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction on appeal. State v. Finley, 234 Mo....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Settle
...may be for review in this court. State v. Frey, 289 S.W. 911; State v. Miller, 270 S.W. 293; State v. Sollars, 200 S.W. 1052; State v. Humfeld, 253 Mo. 340; v. Finley, 234 Mo. 603; State v. McKay, 225 Mo. 544; State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 211; State v. Fraker, 137......
-
State v. Settle
...may be for review in this court. State v. Frey, 289 S.W. 911; State v. Miller, 270 S.W. 293; State v. Sollars, 200 S.W. 1052; State v. Humfeld, 253 Mo. 340; State v. Finley, 234 Mo. 603; State v. McKay, 225 Mo. 544; State v. Coleman, 199 Mo. 112; State v. Finley, 193 Mo. 211; State v. Frake......
-
State v. Spidle
...charge any offense under the law." [State v. Tooker, 188 Mo. 438, 87 S.W. 487; State v. Wooley, 215 Mo. 620, 115 S.W. 417; State v. Humfeld, 253 Mo. 340, 161 S.W. 735.] have considered the objections to the information which are open in the absence of a bill of exceptions, and as appellant ......
-
State v. Spidle, 35643.
...any offense under the law." [State v. Tooker, 188 Mo. 438, 87 S.W. 487; State v. Wooley, 215 Mo. 620, 115 S.W. 417; State v. Humfeld, 253 Mo. 340, 161 S.W. 735.] We have considered the objections to the information which are open in the absence of a bill of exceptions, and as appellant in h......