State v. Kampman
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Harrison Circuit Court. — Hon. P. G. Stepp? Judge. Instruction number 1 for the state is erroneous, because it does not require the jury to find that the defendant was a registered pharmacist; nor does it tell the jury what it takes to constitute a druggist within the meaning of the law. State v. Greene, 27 Mo. App. 626; State v. Baskett, 52 Mo. App. 389; State v. Carnahan, 63 Mo. App. 244; State v. Marchand, 25 Mo. App. 657; State v. Douglass, 48 Mo. App. 39.
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
Defendant was indicted, tried and found guilty in the court below for suffering intoxicating liquors u> be drunk at his place of business contrary to ¡the provisions of the druggists’ law, chapter 58, Revised Statutes 1889.
The question on this appeal is whether or not the trial court erred in giving the state’s first instruction, which, in substance, told the jury that if the defendant was at the time the liquor was drunk at his store, “a druggist and dealer in drugs and medicines,” then said defendant was guilty and they should so find.
Eollowing the decisions of this court in State v.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. BaskettMissouri Court of Appeals · 1893
- State v. GreeneMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887