State v. Davis
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.- — Hon. C. H. S.. Goodman, Judge. (1) The indictment charges the offense in the-language of the statute, and is sufficient. R. S. 1889, sec. 4622; 95 Mo. 889. (2) Section 4622 of Revised Statutes, 1889, is constitutional.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court.- — Hon. C. H. S.. Goodman, Judge. (1) The indictment charges the offense in the-language of the statute, and is sufficient. R. S. 1889, sec. 4622; 95 Mo. 889. (2) Section 4622 of Revised Statutes, 1889, is constitutional. In the same section the druggist and pharmacist is required to preserve all prescriptions compounded by him ; in other words, the druggist and pharmacist is licensed or commissioned by the state, and, after being so licensed or commissioned, the same power that licenses or commissions him also requires him to preserve all prescriptions…
1Opinion of the CourtMacfarlane, J.
This case comes to this court on the appeal of the state from a judgment of the circuit *668court of Daviess county, sustaining a demurrer to tlie indictment.
Defendant was indicted as a druggist and pharmacist, under section 4622, for refusing to produce, before the grand jury of the county, the prescriptions filled by him during the previous year, when lawfully summoned to do so. A demurrer to this indictment was sustained on'the ground that said section, in requiring defendant to produce the prescriptions before the grand jury, was in conflict with section 23 of the bill of rights under the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Boyd v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Austin v. StateSupreme Court of Missouri · 1847
3Cited by25 opinions
- Calhoun v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1916
- State v. LockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1924
- Jones v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1919
- State v. BixmanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1916
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.