State v. Wright

Missouri Court of Appeals

State v. Wright

160 S.W. 1199, 177 Mo. App. 481, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 55

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in State v. Wright. Read the opinion of the Court — 161 Mo. App. 597 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 4, 1913·Published

Opinion

ALLEN, J.

The defendant was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. His punishment was assessed at imprisonment in the workhouse of the city of St. Louis for a term of three months, and he appeals.

No hill of exceptions was filed, and there is nothing hut the record proper before us. It is our duty, however, under the law, to examine the record and render judgment thereupon. This we have done and find no error therein. The information is sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the judgment is in due form. The judgment of the' court of criminal correction is therefore affirmed.

Reynolds, P. J., and Nortoni, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ALLEN, J.

The defendant was convicted of practicing medicine without a license. His punishment was assessed at imprisonment in the workhouse of the city of St. Louis for a term of three months, and he appeals.

No hill of exceptions was filed, and there is nothing hut the record proper before us. It is our duty, however, under the law, to examine the record and render judgment thereupon. This we have done and find no error therein. The information is sufficient to sustain the conviction, and the judgment is in due form. The judgment of the' court of criminal correction is therefore affirmed.

Reynolds, P. J., and Nortoni, J., concur.

State v. Wright, 160 S.W. 1199, 177 Mo. App. 481, 1913 Mo. App. LEXIS 55 (Mo. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

160 S.W. 1199 (State v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.