State v. Nixdorf
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Miller Circuit Court. — Hon. E. L. Edwards, Judge. The sufficiency of the prescription was a question of law for the court; hence, the first instruction for the state was erroneous, and should not have been given. State v. Clevenger, 25 Mo. App. 653,; State v. Roberts, 33 Mo. App. 524; State v. Marchand, 25 Mo. App. 658.
1Opinion of the CourtGill, J.
Defendant was indicted and convicted, as a registered pharmacist, for selling intoxicating liquor in less quantities than four gallons, without a written prescription from a regular registered, practicing physician. His fine was fixed by the jury at $100, and from the judgment thereon the defendant has appealed. A reversal of this judgment is sought on some alleged errors in the court’s instructions. We have examined the entire record; and, while the court *495below committed error in instructing the jury, we must •affirm the judgment, since upon the undisputed facts the judgment was manifestly…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Ryan v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- State v. HammackMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
- State v. WillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
- State v. ManningMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
- State v. ChinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.