State v. Fairgrieve
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Randolph Circuit Court, Non. Gr. H. Burckhartt, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. I. The indictment in this case is based on section 2, page 90, Laws of 1883, concerning druggists. It is substantially in the language of the statute, and is sufficient. State v. Smith, 24 Mo. App. 413 ; State •». Hedrick, 20 Mo.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Randolph Circuit Court, Non. Gr. H. Burckhartt, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. I. The indictment in this case is based on section 2, page 90, Laws of 1883, concerning druggists. It is substantially in the language of the statute, and is sufficient. State v. Smith, 24 Mo. App. 413 ; State •». Hedrick, 20 Mo. App. 629 ; State r>. Bohem, 61 Mo. 82; State v. James, 63 Mo. 570 ; State v. Goss, 74 Mo. 593 ; State v. Adcock, 65 Mo. 590; State v. Mohr, 68 Mo. 304 ; State v. Walker, 24 Mo. App. 679; State». Burr, 81 Mo. 108; State n. Anderson, 81 Mo. 78. II. The respondents,…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
Defendant was indicted as a druggist under section 2, page 90, Acts 1883, for selling liquor contrary to said section. The indictment was quashed by the trial court and the state appeals. The statute is, that no druggist or pharmacist shall “sell, give away, or otherwise dispose of intoxicating liquors,” etc. The indictment charged that defendant “ did unlawfully sell, or give away, and dispose of intoxicating liquors,” etc.
Whenever a statute is in the disjunctive, as is this one, the acts should be charged in the conjunctive unless they be repugnant. State v. Fitzsimmons, 30 Mo. 236. In the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State v. PittmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- State v. FitzsimmonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1860
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. NejinSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1916