State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 02 August 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 5711.,5711. |
| Citation | 108 S.W.2d 177 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Christian County; Robert L. Gideon, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Perry E. Williams was convicted of practicing medicine without authority, and he appeals. Case transferred from Supreme Court [337 Mo. 987, 87 S.W.(2d) 423] to the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed.
Tom R. Moore, of Ozark, for appellant.
G. Purd Hays and Joseph C. Crain, both of Ozark, for the State.
This case comes to the writer on reassignment. The defendant was charged with a misdemeanor, and fined $50 by a jury under a charge of practicing medicine without a license in Christian county.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court on the contention that there was a constitutional question in the case. That court found there was no constitutional question in the case and transferred the case to this court. State v. Williams, 337 Mo. 987, 87 S.W.(2d) 423.
Aside from the constitutional question which has been determined by the Supreme Court, the case is presented to us under the following three assignments of error:
Under the second assignment, quoted above, it needs no citation of authorities to the effect that when the defendant offered his demurrer at the close of plaintiff's case, and it was overruled, and where defendant offered testimony as in this case, he thereby waived any rights he had under his demurrer at the close of plaintiff's case, and in consideration of the case as a whole under this assignment as well as the fourth, above quoted, we find that the defendant while on the stand admitted that he was engaged in the practice of medicine in Christian county, as alleged in the information, and there was proof, sufficient to go to the jury, that the defendant had no license to practice, and was not a registered practitioner. So the court did not err in overruling the demurrer to the evidence at the close of the whole case. State v. Decker, 326 Mo. 946, 33 S.W.(2d) 958, loc. cit. 961; State v. Meadows, 330 Mo. 1020, 51 S.W.(2d) 1033, loc. cit. 1036.
The third assignment, quoted above, is too general to present anything for review in this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. January
... ... 405. (6) The court did not ... err in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial ... filed at the close of State's case. State v ... Barr, 78 S.W.2d 104, 336 Mo. 300; State v ... Lebo, 98 S.W.2d 695, 339 Mo. 960; State v ... Meadows, 51 S.W.2d 1033, 330 Mo. 1020; State v ... Williams, 108 S.W.2d 177. (7) The court did not err in ... overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, filed at ... the close of the whole case. State v. Ring, 141 ... S.W.2d 57, 346 Mo. 290; State v. Bigley, 247 S.W ... 169; State v. Myers, 44 S.W.2d 71. (8) Allocution ... was granted defendant ... ...
-
State v. Conway
...motion for new trial are too indefinite and uncertain to be considered by this court. State v. Wright, 112 S.W.2d 571; State v. Williams, 108 S.W.2d 177; State Shawley, 67 S.W.2d 74, 334 Mo. 352; State v. Miller, 117 S.W.2d 353; State v. Dollarhide, 87 S.W.2d 156, 337 Mo. 962. (2) It was no......
-
State v. Tiedt
...S.W.2d 323, 353 Mo. 324; State v. Rosengrant, 93 S.W.2d 961, 338 Mo. 1153; State v. Tyler, 159 S.W.2d 777, 349 Mo. 167; State v. Williams, 108 S.W.2d 177, 349 Mo. 167. Supreme Court will only consider contentions briefed and will not consider other alleged errors complained of in motion for......
-
State v. Sheets
...Statute in these three assignments of error. The assignments are too general to present anything to this court for review. State v. Williams, Mo.App., 108 S.W.2d 177; State v. Reagan, Mo.Sup., 108 S.W.2d 391; State v. Courtney, 356 Mo. 531, 202 S.W.2d Defendant's assignment of error numbere......