Legal Opinion

State v. Steele

Missouri Court of Appeals

Decided April 30, 1900PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from tbe D'eHalb Circuit Court.—Hon. William 8. Herndon, Judge. The evidence clearly proves that the defendant is the proprietor of a drug store under chapter’ 58, Revised Statutes 1889. If so, he should have been indicted under the druggist act, and not as a common merchant under chapter 111, Revised Statutes 1889, p. 1617. All druggists must have a merchant’s license. State v. Piper, 41 Mo. App. 160; State v. Rafter, 62 Mo. App. 101; State v. Goff, 66 Mo.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, P. J.

The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted under section 6915, Revised Statutes 1889, for selling intoxicating liquors in a quantity less than five gallons.

The defendant had a merchant’s license. He was not a practicing physician or druggist, though at the time of the offense he was conducting a drug store in which was kept and exposed to sale such drugs, medicines, etc., as were usually kept in similar stores in the same town. He contends that though he was not a registered pharmacist himself, he kept constantly in his employ a competent pharmacist. It is conceded that Dr. Dent was a…

2Cases cited5 opinions

State v. PiperMissouri Court of Appeals · 1890
State v. WilliamsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1897
State v. AlexanderMissouri Court of Appeals · 1898
State v. RafterMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
State v. McAnallyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1896

3Cited by4 opinions

State v. QuinnMissouri Court of Appeals · 1902
State v. QuinnSupreme Court of Missouri · 1902
State v. WillsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1911
State v. ShanksMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903