State v. Williams
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Shannon Circuit Court. — Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge. Defendant was indicted as a dramshop keeper, when he should have been indicted as the proprietor of a drug store, under the druggist laws of 1889. R. 8. 1889, sees. 4611, 4621, 4622. Any person not a pharmacist or druggist may own and conduct a drug store, if he keep constantly in his employ a competent pharmacist, which defendant did in this case.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Shannon Circuit Court. — Hon. W. N. Evans, Judge. Defendant was indicted as a dramshop keeper, when he should have been indicted as the proprietor of a drug store, under the druggist laws of 1889. R. 8. 1889, sees. 4611, 4621, 4622. Any person not a pharmacist or druggist may own and conduct a drug store, if he keep constantly in his employ a competent pharmacist, which defendant did in this case. R. S. 1889, sec. 4614. Defendant had a merchant’s license at the time sales were made, and kept a stock of drugs, medicines, and such other things as druggists usually keep, and if…
1Opinion of the CourtBland, P. J.
*286sale op liquor by merchant and druggist. *285Defendant was indicted and convicted under section 1, page 128, Session Acts of 1891 (concerning dramshops) of violating that act by selling to one C. C. Hunt, one pint of whisky, etc., without a dramshop license. The evidence of Hunt was that he bought whisky as charged in the indictment. The evidence on the part of the stgte, and the defense was, that the defendant kept a drug store, containing a stock of drugs, medicines, notions, etc., such as are usually kept in drug stores, situated in neighborhoods similar to the one where defendant’s store was…
2Cited by8 opinions
- State v. QuinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- State v. QuinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
- State v. AlexanderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
- State v. WillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- State v. SteeleMissouri Court of Appeals · 1900
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.