Legal Opinion

State v. Humfeld

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 7, 1914PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court. — Hon. R. A. Brener, Judge. (1) The court erred in not granting defendant’s motion to quash the information as' it is fatally defective. State v. Hells-cher, 150 Mo. App-, 2301; State y. Brand, 153 Mo. App. 27; State v. Carson, 132 S. W. 587; State v. Hellscher, 156 Mo. App-. 63. (2) The prosecuting attorney in his argument to the jury made remarks not based upon the evidence and clearly prejudicial to the defendant.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

NORTON!, J.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of practicing medicine and treating the sick without a license first had and obtained from the State Board of Health, and this appeal is prosecuted from that judgment.

The principal question for consideration here relates to the sufficiency of the information, in that it omits a negative averment to the effect that defendant was not registered on or prior to March 12, 1901, as is contemplated in the proviso to the statute under which the prosecution is had. The statute is as follows:

*641“Any person practicing medicine or surgery in this State, and any…

2Cases cited12 opinions

United States v. CookSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
State v. MeekSupreme Court of Missouri · 1879
State v. PhillipsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
State v. O'BrienSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

State v. StanleyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1925
State v. HuxollMissouri Court of Appeals · 1915