State v. Smith
Decision Date | 07 March 1911 |
Citation | 233 Mo. 242,135 S.W. 465 |
Parties | STATE v. SMITH. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County; Geo. H. Williams, Special Judge.
George Smith was convicted of practicing medicine without a license, and he appeals. Affirmed.
See, also, 225 Mo. 579, 125 S. W. 460.
This is an appeal from Webster county, where the defendant was convicted of the offense of treating and attempting to treat the sick and afflicted without first having obtained a license from the State Board of Health. His punishment was assessed at a fine of $50. The case reaches this court by transfer from the Springfield Court of Appeals upon a constitutional question. The information upon which the defendant was tried reads as follows: "J. E. Haynes, prosecuting attorney, duly elected, commissioned sworn, qualified, installed, and acting as such in and for said county of Webster, in the state of Missouri, upon his oath and upon his hereto appended oath, informs the court, and upon his said oath and upon his hereto appended oath, does depose, present, aver, and charge, that said defendant, George Smith, on or about the 1st day of July, 1908, and from said date until November 6, 1908, at the said county of Webster, did then and there unlawfully, wrongfully, willfully practice medicine and surgery, and did attempt to treat the sick or others afflicted with bodily and mental infirmities, and did then and there represent and advertise himself by means of certain printed matter, the exact nature of which is to this informant unknown, so as to indicate that he was authorized to practice medicine and surgery, and that he was authorized to treat the sick and afflicted with bodily and mental infirmities, without then and there having a license from the State Board of Health, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, against the peace and dignity of the state of Missouri." The information is based upon sections 1 and 5 of an act regulating the practice of medicine and surgery, approved March 12, 1901 (Sess. Acts of 1901, p. 207), reading as follows:
Said section 1 appears, without change, as section 8311 of the Revision of 1909, and section 5, with some amendments not material to the case at bar, appears as section 8315 of said Revision.
The evidence shows that the defendant practiced what he called the "science of chiropractic," which science is thus defined in defendant's brief: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. Beeler
...is an object of such vital importance to the welfare of the state that any rational means to that end must be upheld." In State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242, 135 S.W. 465, 472, the same insistence was made and rejected by the Supreme Court of Missouri in the following "* * * The Legislature though......
-
State v. Fite
... ... 1015; ... People v. Ellis, 162 A.D. 288, 147 N.Y.S. 681; ... Board of Med. Ex. v. Freenor (Utah), 154 P. 942; ... People v. Ratledge, 172 Cal. 401, 156 P. 455; ... People v. Vermillion, 30 Cal.App. 417, 158 P. 504; ... State v. Griener, 63 Wash. 46, 114 P. 898; State ... v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242, 135 S.W. 465, 33 L. R. A., N. S., ... 179; Swartz v. Siveny, 35 R. I. 1, 85 A. 33; ... Commonwealth v. Jewell, 199 Mass. 558, 85 N.E. 858.) ... "As ... new schools of practice come into favor their followers must ... possess the requirements for the practice of medicine ... ...
-
Anderson v. Interriver Drainage and Levee District
...of St. Louis v. Public Service Commission, 276 Mo. 509; State v. Julow, 129 Mo. 163; State v. Mo. Pac. Railroad, 242 Mo. 339; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242.] Next, is insisted that the plaintiffs' property has been damaged for a public use. [Houck v. District, 248 Mo. 373; State ex rel. v. Dr......
-
State on Inf. Huffman v. Sho-Me Power Co-op.
... ... 126, 61 S.W. 587; ... United States v. Mescall, 215 U.S. 26, 54 L.Ed. 77; ... Mason v. United States, 260 U.S. 545, 67 L.Ed. 396; ... Mid-Northern Oil Co. v. Walker, 268 U.S. 45, 69 ... L.Ed. 841; Ruckert v. Grand Avenue Ry. Co., 163 Mo ... 260, 63 S.W. 814; State v. Smith, 233 Mo. 242, 135 ... S.W. 465; Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. Kimball, ... 206 Iowa 1251, 222 N.W. 31; City of Chicago v. Arbuckle ... Bros., 344 Ill. 597, 176 N.E. 761; State v ... Angelo, 71 N.H. 180, 51 A. 905; Cochran v ... Harvey, 88 Ga. 352, 14 S.E. 580; Commonwealth v ... ...