Redding v. State

• Decision Date: 09 November 1892
• Citation: Redding v. State, 91 Ga. 231, 18 S. E. 289 (Ga. 1892)
• Parties: REDDING v. STATE.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

18 S.E. 289

91 Ga. 231

REDDING v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 9, 1892

Syllabus by the Court.

1.The constitutional questions in this case are the same as those ruled upon in Bell v. State,18 S.E. 288, (just decided.)Other questions on the indictment are ruled in principle by Carter v. State,68 Ga. 826;Hill v. Mayor, etc.,72 Ga. 314;andWilliams v. State(Ga.)15 S.E. 552.

2.The evidence, being that the accused, a practicing physician sold a half pint of whisky to a certain person, who went to his store and said he was sick, and thought whisky would help him, there being no evidence that the person was in fact sick, or that he was a patient under treatment by the accused, who did nothing but examine him, and then sell him the whisky, the jury were warranted in finding that the transaction was not within the exception of the statute which allows practicing physicians to furnish liquors as medicine to their patients under treatment.There was no error in denying the application for a new trial.

Error from superior court, Monroe county; J. S. Boynton, Judge.

C. E Redding was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors unlawfully, and from an order denying a new trial he brings error.Affirmed.

pg290 Cabaniss & Willingham and Harrison & Peeples, for plaintiff in error.

John J. Hunt, Sol.Gen., for the State.

BLECKLEY C.J.

1.The constitutional questions raised by demurrer to the indictment are ruled by the decision in Bell v. State,18 S.E. 288, (this term.)The act on which the indictment is based is not unconstitutional for either of the causes specified in the demurrer.Other questions on the indictment are ruled in principle by Carter v. State,68 Ga. 826;Hill v. Mayor, etc.,72 Ga. 314;andWilliams v. State, (Ga.)15 S.E. 552.The indictment was not insufficient by reason of any of the deficiencies imputed to it.

2.The accused sought to protect himself under the exception in the statute which allows practicing physicians to furnish liquors as medicine to their patients under treatment.There was no evidence to uphold this theory, save that the person to whom the whisky was furnished said he was sick.It does not appear that any prescription or treatment was applied for furnished, or paid for.The patient selected his own medicine, paid for it, received it, and administered it to himself.The accused--doubtless as matter of form--examined him, and then sold...