State v. Hendrix
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. — Hon. C. H. S. Goodman, Judge. (1) There is no merit in appellant’s complaint that the act of March 29, 1883, amendatory of the act of March 26, 1881, is nnconstitntional because the amendatory act does not set forth, in full, the act amended. Acts, 18S3, p. 89 ; Acts, 1881, p. 130. Any section of a statute may be amended provided it be fully set forth.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. — Hon. C. H. S. Goodman, Judge. (1) There is no merit in appellant’s complaint that the act of March 29, 1883, amendatory of the act of March 26, 1881, is nnconstitntional because the amendatory act does not set forth, in full, the act amended. Acts, 18S3, p. 89 ; Acts, 1881, p. 130. Any section of a statute may be amended provided it be fully set forth. Sec. 34, art. 4, Const. 1875; State v. Thruslon, 92 Mo. 325. (2) It was not necessary to set forth the name or names in the indictment of the person or persons to whom liquor was sold. State v. Ladd, 15 Mo.…
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
— The defendant, was indicted, tried and fined in the sum of one hundred dollars for selling intoxicating liquor as a pharmacist without a prescription therefor from a physician, etc.
1. The case is here by reason of the question made that the second section of the act of March 29, 1883, (Acts of 1883, p. 89) is in conflict with section 34 of article 4 of the constitution, and therefore void. The question thus made is ruled against appellant on the authority of State v. Thruston, 92 Mo. 325. See also Morrison v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 602.
2. The witness Gibson having testified that he purchased from…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Morrison v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1888
- State v. ThrustonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1887
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. DouglassMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- State v. DavisMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- Kerr v. CusenbaryMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897