Hollon v. State
| Decision Date | 10 November 1916 |
| Docket Number | 23,105 |
| Citation | 114 N.E. 5,186 Ind. 374 |
| Parties | Hollon v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1917.
From Pike Circuit Court; John L. Bretz, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Henry Hollon. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Harry W. Carpenter and Alvin Padgett, for appellant.
Evan B Stotsenburg, Attorney-General, Thomas H. Branaman and Stanley M. Kreig, for the State.
Appeal from a judgment of conviction based on an affidavit which charges appellant with keeping, running and operating a place where intoxicating liquors were unlawfully sold. In support of his assertion that the verdict of the jury is contrary both to law and to the evidence given at the trial appellant contends that, as a retail druggist, even though unlicensed as such, he is not liable to prosecution under § 8351 Burns 1914, Acts 1907 p. 689, on which the affidavit is based; that a druggist who sells intoxicating liquors unlawfully may be prosecuted under either § 8349 (Acts 1907 p. 27, 32) or § 8352 Burns 1914 (Acts 1907 p. 690) and under no other law. Section 8351, supra provides, in part, that "any person who shall keep, run or operate a place where intoxicating liquors are sold, bartered or given away in violation of the laws of the state * * * shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," etc. It provides further "that none of the provisions of this section shall apply to any druggist or pharmacist who is licensed as such by the state board of pharmacy."
In the case of State v. Cameron (1911). 176 Ind. 385, 96 N.E. 150, this court passed on substantially the same question which is now presented for consideration and held, in effect, that although a druggist need not take out a license in order lawfully to deal in certain articles of trade, yet he must be licensed by the State Board of Pharmacy before he may sell intoxicating liquors or operate a place where the same are sold in any quantity under the exception contained in the statute above quoted. It is true that in the case of Shank v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 298, 304, 108 N.E. 521, we noted that reference to § 8349 Burns 1914, supra, was inadvertently omitted from the statement in State v. Cameron, supra, that "sections 8351, 8352, supra, cover the whole subject of sales of intoxicating liquors by druggists," but the correction thus made in no way served to disapprove the holding in the Cameron case and, on a present review of the question in issue, we are satisfied with the conclusions therein reached. Appellant makes no contention that, in this view of the case, the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction.
Certain...
To continue reading
Request your trial