State v. Hereford
Supreme Court of Missouri
■ The indictment is in the very words of the statute, and is indeed more specific in its allegations than was necessary. It was sufficient to allege that the defendant followed the practice of medicine as a business, without alleging that he also followed it for a livelihood. The objection that it is alleged that he had no physician’s license is of no weight.
Read the full summary
■ The indictment is in the very words of the statute, and is indeed more specific in its allegations than was necessary. It was sufficient to allege that the defendant followed the practice of medicine as a business, without alleging that he also followed it for a livelihood. The objection that it is alleged that he had no physician’s license is of no weight. It was proven and was more spcific than was necessary, for it would have been sufficient to say that he had no license. 1. The indictment, after averring the time and place when and at which the defendant followed' the practice of…
1Opinion of the CourtBirch, J.
Tlie defendant was indicted for a violation of the 8th sec tion of the “Act to sustain the Credit of the State.” The indictment contains two counts, both conforming to the words of the statute, except (as is alleged) that they erroneously or insufficiently charge it as an offense under that statute, that the defendant followed the business “without having a physician’s license continuing in force,” &c., instead of “a license to follow such profession,-” &c.
It is deemed unnecessary to inquire into the sufficiency of such an indict*6ment upon general principles, as it will be perceived, by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Ike v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1872
- State v. JamesSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- State v. AndersonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1927