State v. Greene
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from Saline Criminal Court, Hon. John E. Ryland, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. I. Appellant contends that the indictment charges two offences in the same count; one for selling intoxicating liquors as druggists and pharmacists without a prescription, and second for selling intoxicating liquors without a license, and for this reason the motion in arrest should have been sustained. II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Saline Criminal Court, Hon. John E. Ryland, Judge. The case is stated in the opinion. I. Appellant contends that the indictment charges two offences in the same count; one for selling intoxicating liquors as druggists and pharmacists without a prescription, and second for selling intoxicating liquors without a license, and for this reason the motion in arrest should have been sustained. II. There was no legal competent evidence tending to prove that the appellant and Parsons were regularly registered druggists or pharmacists, under the act regulating the sales of medicines and…
1Opinion of the CourtEllison, J.
This is a prosecution against defendant as a druggist. He was convicted below and appeals. The indictment upon which the prosecution was founded was against this defendant and William Parsons, who the evidence shows was Greene’s partner in the drug business. The defendant, as stated, is indicted as a druggist. A druggist, under the provisions of the acts of 1881, page 130, is one who is registered as such. State v. Roller, 77 Mo. 120, 128. In order to convict defendant, the state should prove he was so registerd. The reason is obvious. He is indicted as being of a special calling and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. RollerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1882
- State v. MarchandMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887
- State v. ScottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1886
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. CarnahanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- State v. DouglassMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- State v. KampmanMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899