*296 fоrmation filed in a police court of the city of St. Louis by the chief of police, charging the defendant with having violated an ordinance of that city (Sec. 625, Revised Code St. Louis 1914, p. 975). The gist оf this ordinance is to penalize fortune-telling, or, in the somewhat verbose language of the information, “the pursuit or praсtice of the pretended art of telling and revealing informаtion of a secret or hidden nature pertaining to the pаst or future of another’s life.” Upon a trial in the police сourt, the defendant was convicted and fined.' He appеaled from this judgment to the court of criminal correction, whеre, upon a trial de novo, he was again convicted and his fine assessed at three hundred dollars. From that -judgment he appeals to this court, whose jurisdiction arises from the fact that the city of St. Lоuis is one of the parties to this proceeding.
It is unnecessary to burden this record with a recital of the testimony to show that the defendant violated the ordinance in that he attemptеd to answer inquiries propounded to him not based upon informаtion derived from recognized sources, but in some occult or mysterious manner, for which he charged and was paid a fee.
The manner in which his conviction was brought about, although tolerаted by the courts, does not comport *297 with what should he regarded as a wholesome administration of the law against offendеrs, whether the offense be a violation of a municipal оrdinance or a criminal statute.
We are concernеd, however, only with errors of procedure and not with the ethics of the proceeding.
I.We find no fault with the information of sufficiеnt moment to authorize a reversal. Although several breaсhes of the ordinance are alleged, this defect was wаived by the failure of the defendant to ask that the city be requirеd to elect upon which breach it would rely. [St. Louis v. Grafeman Dairy Co.,
The technical precision required of an informatiоn or an indictment in the charging of a crime is not required in the drafting оf an information for a violation of a city ordinance. [Gаllatin v. Tarwater,
II.The ordinance, the validity of which is assailed, is not preserved in the bill of exception, although it was shown that it wаs introduced in evidence. Under such circumstances, where it suffiсiently appears, as it does here, that the information сharges the commission of an offense prohibited by a city оrdinance, the validity of the latter will not be considered. [Plattsburg v. Smаrr, 216 S. W. (Mo. App.) 538.]
III.The distribution of cards by the appellant holding himself out as possessing supernatural powers constituted an admission that he was engaged in telling fortunes, and such cards are admissible in evidence as corroborative of the testimony that he told the fortune of the prosecuting witness. [Mayer v. State, 64 N. J. L. 323.]
*298
IY. In the absence of a showing of an abuse of discretion, a trial court may propound qnes-tions to a witness or suggest that counsel may do so. [State v. Wilson,
Y. The freedom of religion is not abridged by prohibiting acts or practices inconsistent with the peace, good order or safety of the State. [Sec. 5, Art. 2, Const. Mo.; Reynolds v. United States,
Finding no error in the trial of this cause, the judgment of the trial court, is affirmed. It is so ordered.