State v. Clevenger
| Decision Date | 03 May 1887 |
| Citation | 25 Mo.App. 653 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. N. T. CLEVENGER, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
APPEAL from the Lawrence County Circuit Court, M. G. MCGREGOR Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
JOHN T TEEL, for the appellant.
W. B SKINNER, for the respondent.
The defendant was indicted for selling intoxicating liquor, as a druggist, in a less quantity than one gallon, without prescription from a regularly registered and practicing physician. He was arraigned, tried, found guilty, sentenced, and appeals.
Upon the trial the state admitted that the defendant was a regularly registered and practicing physician, and the defendant admitted that he was a regularly registered druggist. It was admitted that the defendant did sell whiskey in less quantity than one gallon, to the witness for the prosecution, at or about the time stated in the indictment.
The defence rested on the sole ground that the whiskey thus sold was sold upon a prescription, prepared by the defendant, himself, at the time when he sold the whiskey. The prescription was offered in evidence by the defendant, but was ruled out by the court; and this is one of the errors complained of. We see no legal grounds on which the paper, offered in evidence and purporting to be a prescription, was rejected. It substantially conforms to the requirements of the statute. The characters, 12, 16, 84, by common acceptance, and commercial use, mean December 16, 1884, and furnish a sufficient date, and the initials of the defendant's name, N. T. C., appended to the prescription, are a sufficient signature within the purview of the law, when shown to be in the defendant's handwriting. The statute requires date and signature for the identification of the memorandum, and does not contemplate that the paper should be executed with the formality of a deed of conveyance.
The error of the court, in excluding this evidence, would, of itself, have necessitated a reversal, and becomes very prejudicial when taken in connection with the charge of the court. The court instructed the jury, in substance, that unless the whiskey was sold (if sold) upon a written prescription from some regularly registered and practicing physician, dated and signed, they should find the defendant guilty, and further instructed them that there was no evidence that the whiskey was sold upon such written prescription. Under this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meredith v. Wilkinson
...was influenced by the erroneous or the valid instruction. Jones v. Talbot, 4 Mo. 279; Nasse v. Algermissen, 25 Mo.App. 186; State v. Clevenger, 25 Mo.App. 653; Thomas Babb, 45 Mo. 384; Frederick Allgaier, 88 Mo. 598; Goetz v. Railroad, 50 Mo. 472; Buel v. Transfer Co., 45 Mo. 562; Otto v. B......
-
State v. Bartlett
... ... State v. Moore, 29 S.W.2d 148; State v ... Williams, 87 S.W.2d 175; State v. Dollarhide, ... 333 Mo. 1087; State v. Cable, 117 Mo. 380; State ... v. Partlow, 90 Mo. 608; State v. Moncado, 34 ... S.W.2d 59; State v. Heath, 237 Mo. 255; State v ... Harrell, 97 Mo. 105; State v. Clevenger, 25 ... Mo.App. 653; State v. Roberts, 280 Mo. 669; ... State v. Creed, 299 Mo. 307; State v ... Rennison, 306 Mo. 473; State v. Burns, 278 Mo ... 441; State v. Canton, 222 S.W. 448; State v ... Banks, 258 Mo. 479; State v. Bartlett, 170 Mo ... 658; State v. Rutherford, 152 Mo. 124; State ... ...
-
The State v. Campbell
... ... conclude "against the peace and dignity of the ... State." This provision is mandatory and a constitutional ... provision cannot be destroyed by inferences and refuge cannot ... be taken behind the plea of clerical error or omission ... State v. Lopez, 19 Mo. 254; State v ... Clevenger, 25 Mo.App. 653; State v. Pemberton, ... 30 Mo. 376; State v. Stacy, 103 Mo. 11; State v ... Schloss, 93 Mo. 61; State v. Ulrich, 96 Mo.App ... 689; State v. Hays, 78 Mo. 600; State v. Reakey, 1 ... Mo.App. 3; State v. Waters, 1 Mo.App. 7. No indictment has ... ever been sustained ... ...
-
State v. Meals
...cured by giving another correct one, and it is impossible to tell which the the jury followed. 97 Mo. 105; 117 Mo. 380; 4 Mo.App. 295; 25 Mo.App. 653; 53 Mo.App. 126. (6) The of the prosecuting attorney constitute reversible error. 95 Mo. 510; 115 Mo. 401; 121 Mo. 137; 95 Mo. 653. Edward C.......