State v. Cassity
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Barry Circuit Court. — Hon. Joseph ■Cravens, Judge.' The indictment is bad, because it does not set out the name of the person to whom the alleged illegal sale of the intoxicating liquor was made by the defendant as a registered druggist and pharmacist. The indictment, therefore, fails in certainty, and will not bar a second prosecution, nor can an intelligent defense be made by a druggist to such a charge. State v. Martin, 44 Mo. App. 45.
1Opinion of the CourtRombauer, P. J.
The defendant was indicted in Lawrence comity for ^selling liquor as druggist and pharmacist without prescription of a duly registered physician. The indictment contained two counts, one charging the defendant as a druggist, and the other •charging him as a pharmacist, under the provisions of *301section 4621 of the Revised Statutes of 1889. The punishment in either case is the same, and consists of a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500. The defendant was convicted in Banry county, to which the cause had been removed by change of venue, the jury bringing in a general verdict of guilty,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wheat v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1840
- State v. MartinMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891
- State v. HoganSupreme Court of Missouri · 1861
- State v. WackerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1885
- State v. WelchSupreme Court of Missouri · 1859
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fehringer v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado · 1915
- State v. O'ConnorMissouri Court of Appeals · 1894