State v. Robinson

Decision Date06 December 1913
Citation253 Mo. 271,161 S.W. 1169
PartiesSTATE ex rel. SPRIGGS v. ROBINSON et al., State Board of Health.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; G. C. Hitchcock, Judge.

Proceeding by the State, on the relation of M. Luther Spriggs, against E. F. Robinson and others, comprising the State Board of Health. From a judgment sustaining the action of the Board in suspending relator from the practice of medicine and surgery, he appeals. Reversed, and action of the Board quashed.

Appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of St. Louis city sustaining the action of the State Board of Health in suspending the appellant from the practice of medicine and surgery in this state for a period of one year. The charge upon which appellant was suspended is that he was guilty of "unprofessional and dishonorable conduct," in that he offered, or was willing, to commit a criminal abortion. Prior to October 19, 1912, appellant was engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery at Joplin, Mo., and the evidence upon which he was suspended from practice is mostly documentary, and is as follows:

First. The following advertisement inserted by appellant in a newspaper at Joplin: "Dr. M. Luther Spriggs. Practice limited to diseases of women and surgery. Office and private hospital, 417 S. Cox avenue. Consultation hours, 9 to 12 a. m., 2 to 4 p. m. Home phone 411, Bell phone 517. Residence, The Connor." After this advertisement appeared, a post office inspector caused certain letters to be written and mailed to appellant from Galena, Mo., to which letters was affixed the name "Susie Davis." Said letters and the appellant's replies thereto are as follows:

"Galena, Mo., May 10th, 1912. Doctor M. Luther Spriggs—Dear Sir: I cut the enclosed from a Joplin Globe of last Sunday, and wish to write you, as I was about to go to Kansas City or somewhere away from here. I am not married and was indiscreet to allow my beau liberties which I should not have done. The worst of it is, I am caught, I fear, and in a family way. I missed just twice. I ought to be sick the 14th of this month but I don't know whether I will or not. I have taken all kinds of medicine without avail. I am scared every day of discovery and believe I am getting larger. Please let me know if you will take it away and how much it will cost. I ask no charity as I have some money and I know the young man the cause of the trouble will furnish more, if needed. We can pay you well between us. Please destroy this letter. Yours truly, Susie Davis, Galena, Mo."

"Joplin, Mo., May 11, 1912. Miss Davis: Replying to yours of the 10th inst., allow me to say that you should come here at the earliest possible moment. At that time we can go fully into all of the details. Very truly yours, M. Luther Spriggs."

"Galena, Missouri, May 21st, 1912. Doctor M. Luther Spriggs—Dear Sir: Replying to your letter in regard to my coming to Joplin for operation, I would ask what the approximate cost will be. I do not want to make the trip to Joplin without enough money to have the work done. I can get the money easier now than I can get it after I get there. I can leave here as soon as I hear from you. Yours truly, Susie Davis, Galena, Mo."

"Joplin, Mo., May 22, 1912. Dear Miss Davis: Will say in reply to yours of the 21st inst., that your bill with me will be approximately $125.00 and your living expenses will have to be met for something like a week or possibly ten days. It seems to me that $150.00 should be ample to take care of everything. Remember that it is important to act as promptly as possible. Very truly yours, M. Luther Spriggs."

"Galena, Missouri. Dr. M. Luther Spriggs —Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of the 22nd inst., I had no idea the price for relieving one in a family way was over $25.00 to $50.00. While I can get more than this, I much fear that I cannot raise the amount you mentioned, and unless you can do some better for me, I must make other arrangements. I can raise $100. Please write me without delay what you will do. Yours truly, Susie Davis, Galena, Mo. May 26th, 1912."

"Joplin, Mo., May 26, 1912. Dear Miss Davis: Replying to yours of to-day allow me to say that we do not ordinarily make any concessions in such matters. However, I am willing under the circumstances, to allow you the reduction you speak of, viz.: $100.00 professional fee. You will of course have to defray your living expenses for a week or ten days, which will be moderate, and I will be glad to assist you to make arrangements in this way that will be satisfactory. Hoping this will meet with your approval. Very truly yours, M. Luther Spriggs."

"Galena, Mo., May 30th, 1912. Dr. M. Luther Spriggs—Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of the 26th inst., I thank you for the concession you have made, but since my last letter, I have come unwell a little. Do you think I could be pregnant under the circumstances? I have missed a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
67 cases
  • Morrison v. State Board of Education
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • November 20, 1969
    ......2, pp. 25--26. Prohibitions against 'unprofessional conduct' by licensees have been struck down as void for vagueness in at least four states. Moore v. Vincent (1935) 174 Okl. 339, 50 P.2d 388 (embalmers); State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson (1913) 253 Mo. 271, 161 S.W. 1169, 1174 ('Our learned Attorney General earnestly insists that it was impossible for the General Assembly to designate the numerous acts and things which would constitute 'dishonorable and unprofessional conduct' * * *. We are * * * unwilling to believe that the ......
  • State v. Fite
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 9, 1916
    ...... are limited by the preceding words, "drugs and. medicine," and refer back to the subject "practice. of . . . . medicine and surgery," so that they belong to. the same class or genus. (State v. Gallagher, 101. Ark. 593, 143 S.W. 98, 38 L. R. A., N. S., 330; State ex. rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 153 Mo. 271, 161 S.W. 1169;. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. State (Tex.), 173. S.W. 525.). . . Where a. statute expressly forbids certain things, there is an. implication raised that it was the legislative intent to. exclude from that prohibition every other thing. ......
  • In re Rust v. Missouri Dental Board, 37048.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • August 22, 1941
    ......(a) A license or right to practice the profession of dentistry is a valuable right which cannot be taken away without due process of law. State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 253 Mo. 271, 161 S.W. 1169; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 304 Mo. 607, 264 S.W. 678; Chenoweth v. State Board of ......
  • Gaddy v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • November 23, 1965
    ...... In turn, the meaning of the phrase 'addiction to a drug habit' largely depends upon the meaning of the word 'addiction.' .         Appellant's counsel cite and rely upon State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 288 Mo. 659, 671, 232 S.W. 1031, 1034(2), and State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 253 Mo. 271, 284, 161 S.W. 1169, 1172(2), in which our Supreme Court said that the predecessor statute to Section 334.100 was highly penal in its nature and should be construed strictly against the Board and liberally in favor of the physician charged. But the court did not long remain of this ......
  • 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