State v. Miller
Oregon Supreme Court
Statement by Mr. Justice Slater. The defendant, J. H. Miller, was charged upon an information filed in the circuit court for Grant County with having violated section three of the act of February 21, 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 223), requiring any itinerant vender or hawker of any drug, nostrum, ointment, o.r application of any kind for the treatment of any disease or injury, to procure a license therefor from the Board of Pharmacy of this State before- offering for sale any such…
Read the full summary
Statement by Mr. Justice Slater. The defendant, J. H. Miller, was charged upon an information filed in the circuit court for Grant County with having violated section three of the act of February 21, 1905 (Laws 1905, p. 223), requiring any itinerant vender or hawker of any drug, nostrum, ointment, o.r application of any kind for the treatment of any disease or injury, to procure a license therefor from the Board of Pharmacy of this State before- offering for sale any such drug, etc. The defendant demurred to the information. This being overruled, he was tried and convicted of the charge, and…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Slater
1. The first objection raised by the demurrer to the sufficiency of the information is that it does not state the facts constituting an itinerant vender, or hawker, but pleads a conclusion of law. The allegation, so far as material, is that the defendant, “while being a traveling vender of a drug, * * did offer for sale and sell to Robert Stockdale, a drug, etc.” It is contended that the phrase “while being a traveling vender” is a conclusion of law, and does not state a fact. The general rule of pleading is that the indictment must contain a specific description of the offense, and it is not…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- State v. ShawOregon Supreme Court · 1892
- State v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- State v. CarrOregon Supreme Court · 1876
- State v. WrightOregon Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. SamOregon Supreme Court · 1887
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- In Re AmblerCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1914
- Chan Sing v. AstoriaOregon Supreme Court · 1916
- State v. RunyonOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. BillupsOregon Supreme Court · 1912
- State v. WyeOregon Supreme Court · 1927
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.