State v. Bailey
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEALS from Bradley Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Bradley, Circuit Judge. It was not necessary to negative the prescription by a physician. All attempts to state anything in reference to physician’s prescriptions may be treated as surplusage. The exceptions in the law are not in the exacting clause and need not be negatived. It is matter to be shown in defence.
Read the full summary
APPEALS from Bradley Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Bradley, Circuit Judge. It was not necessary to negative the prescription by a physician. All attempts to state anything in reference to physician’s prescriptions may be treated as surplusage. The exceptions in the law are not in the exacting clause and need not be negatived. It is matter to be shown in defence. Wilson v. State, 35 Ark., 414 ; Blackwell v. State, 36 Ark. 178. Nor was it necessary to state to whom the liquor was sold., Johnson v. State, 40 Ark., 453.
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
i. liquor: selling.for pincSer?1 Druggist. To these four indictments for violations of the Three Mile Act, the Circuit Court sustained demurrers. In one of the cases it was objected that the indictment did not gpe0jPy to whom the liquor .was sold. Such an allegation was unnecessary. Johnson v. State, 40 Ark., 453, and cases cited.
2. Exceput°eninstat"' And in all of the cases it was objected that the indictments did not negative the fact that , the defendants were druggists selling for medical purposes only. The indictments do allege that the liquors were not sold upon the certificate of a…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McNeil v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Parmenter v. United StatesCourt Of Appeals Of Indian Territory · 1906
- Thomas v. BurkeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909