State v. Sollars

• Decision Date: 02 February 1918
• Docket Number: No. 20369.,20369.
• Citation: 200 S.W. 1052
• Parties: STATE v. SOLLARS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

200 S.W. 1052

STATE v. SOLLARS.

No. 20369.

Supreme Court of Missouri. In Banc.

February 2, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Joseph D. Perkins, Judge.

G. W. Sollars was convicted of violating Rev. St. 1909, § 8315, by practicing medicine without a license, and he appeals. Cause transferred to Springfield Court of Appeals.

Defendant stands charged, by information in due form, with a violation of section 8315, R. S. 1909. We say in due form because the information is not attacked on the ground of its phraseology, but only on the ground that the statute upon which it is based is violative of the state and federal Constitutions. To the information the defendant first filed a general demurrer, which was overruled. He thereafter filed a motion to quash the information in this language:

"Defendant moves the court to quash the information filed herein for the following reasons, viz.:

"First. The statute on which it is predicated violates section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

"Second. The statute upon which it is predicated violates section 30, article 2, of the Constitution of Missouri.

"Third. The statute upon which it is predicated is unreasonable and oppressive, in that it requires defendant to procure from the state board of health a license to practice medicine and surgery, or treat the sick, for hire or pay, and at the same time said statute affords no means whereby defendant can procure a license to treat the sick other than by treatment with or by medicine and surgery, and by its terms makes it absolutely impossible to procure a license to treat the sick other than by medicine and surgery."

On this motion to quash, the defendant introduced the following evidence:

"G. L. Chamberlain testified that he was a chiropractor, a graduate of the Palmer School, at Davenport, Iowa, a chiropractic school; that it was necessary, in order to graduate from that school, and that it was necessary in the practice of that profession, to study symptomatology, anatomy, physiology, nerve tracing and spinal adjusting; that it is not necessary in the practice of that profession for the practitioner to study chemistry, therapeutics, obstetrics, gynecology, surgery, or bacteriology; that it was not necessary for the practitioner to prescribe or administer medicines to those who claim to be sick, and that a chiropractor never prescribes or administers medicines and never uses a knife or other instrument, or practices surgery; that the chiropractor uses his hands only."

The motion to quash was overruled as the record proper shows, but the bill of exceptions shows nothing as to this motion, except the evidence introduced thereon, supra.

Defendant was a chiropractor. For the state the evidence tended to show that defendant treated an afflicted boy and charged and received pay for such treatment. Upon a trial before a jury the defendant was found guilty and fined in the sum of $75, and from a judgment and sentence on such verdict this appeal was taken.

Owen & Davis, of Joplin, for appellant. Frank W. McAllister, Atty. Gen., and C. P. Le Mire, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GRAVES, C. J. (after stating the facts as above).

The serious question is our jurisdiction. The crime is a misdemeanor. The constitutional questions were attempted to be raised....