Riley v. State, 5 Div. 209.
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | RICE, Judge. |
| Citation | 23 So.2d 10,32 Ala.App. 180 |
| Docket Number | 5 Div. 209. |
| Decision Date | 13 March 1945 |
| Parties | RILEY v. STATE. |
23 So.2d 10
32 Ala.App. 180
RILEY
v.
STATE.
5 Div. 209.
Alabama Court of Appeals
March 13, 1945
Rehearing Denied June 26, 1945. [23 So.2d 11]
Middleton & Atkinson and J. B. Atkinson, all of Clanton, for appellant.
[32 Ala.App. 181] Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Forman Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
RICE, Judge.
'No person within this state shall manufacture for sale therein, have in possession with intent to sell, offer or expose for sale, sell, or deliver any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this article.' Code 1940, Title 2, Article 18, Section 304.
Code 1940, Title 2, Section 310 (a part of the above cited Article 18), provides that: 'Drugs shall also be deemed misbranded in the following cases: * * * If its package or label shall bear or contain any statement, design, or device regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or substances contained therein, which is false or fraudulent.'
Under the law, as we have just quoted hereinabove, the following complaint (omitting merely formal parts) was filed against appellant in the circuit court, where his case was regularly brought by him on appeal from the Inferior Law Court of Chilton County, where he had been duly tried and convicted, viz.:
'The State of Alabama, by its solicitor, complains of William Riley that, within twelve months before the commencement of this prosecution William Riley manufactured for sale, or did have in possession with intent to sell, or offered or exposed for sale, or did sell, or delivered an article of food or drugs which was misbranded, in that he manufactured for sale Mineral Rock of All Ages, or did have in possession with intent to sell Mineral Rock of All Ages, or offered or exposed for sale, or did sell or deliver Mineral Rock of All Ages, an article of food or drugs, which was misbranded, in that it contained statements, designs or devices, regarding the curative or therapeutic effect of such article Rock of All Ages, or the ingredients or substances contained therein, to-wit: that said Mineral Rock of All Ages was a treatment or medicine for 'Cancer, Rheumatism, Kidney and Bladder Trouble, Indigestion, Constipation, Flux, Pellagra, Eczema, Boils, Old Sores, Blood Poison and all skin diseases, Sore Throat, Pyorrhea, Female Complaints of Malaria,' which statements, designs or devices, are false or fraudulent, contrary to law.'
Appellant's able counsel filed twenty-seven grounds of demurrer to the foregoing complaint; and each of them has had our careful study.
[32 Ala.App. 182] But we do not see the need of an extended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
...to name the drug or instrument, nor to aver how the drug was administered or the instrument was used. Page 513 In Riley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 180, 23 So.2d 10, 11, the accused was charged with violating the Alabama Food and Drug Act, Code of 1940, Title 2, Article 18, § 304. Twenty-seven gr......
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 970
...was sufficient although it did not contain the word 'unlawful.' See also, Porter v. State, 15 Ala.App. 218, 72 So. 776; Riley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 180, 23 So.2d We come now to the third aspect of this review. The solution of this question has invited considerable study and research. It is ......
-
Jefferson Lumber Co. v. Berry, 6 Div. 293.
...of the damage. Brinkmeyer, et al. v. Bethea, 139 Ala. 376, 35 So. 996. This is not an action of trespass, but an action for negligence [23 So.2d 10.] resulting in injury. The true rule is said to be that 'if the thing destroyed, although it is part of the realty, has a value which can be ac......
-
Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Div. 841.
...So.2d 616 32 Ala.App. 179 ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. CAMPBELL. 7 Div. 841.Alabama Court of AppealsJune 26, 1945 [32 Ala.App. 180] John A. Lusk, Jr., of Gadsden, for appellant. Scott & Dawson and C. A. Wolfes, all of Fort Payne, for appellee. RICE, Judge. There seems no question but th......
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 722
...to name the drug or instrument, nor to aver how the drug was administered or the instrument was used. Page 513 In Riley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 180, 23 So.2d 10, 11, the accused was charged with violating the Alabama Food and Drug Act, Code of 1940, Title 2, Article 18, § 304. Twenty-seven gr......
-
Gayden v. State, 3 Div. 970
...was sufficient although it did not contain the word 'unlawful.' See also, Porter v. State, 15 Ala.App. 218, 72 So. 776; Riley v. State, 32 Ala.App. 180, 23 So.2d We come now to the third aspect of this review. The solution of this question has invited considerable study and research. It is ......
-
Jefferson Lumber Co. v. Berry, 6 Div. 293.
...of the damage. Brinkmeyer, et al. v. Bethea, 139 Ala. 376, 35 So. 996. This is not an action of trespass, but an action for negligence [23 So.2d 10.] resulting in injury. The true rule is said to be that 'if the thing destroyed, although it is part of the realty, has a value which can be ac......
-
Alabama G.S.R. Co. v. Campbell, 7 Div. 841.
...So.2d 616 32 Ala.App. 179 ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN R. CO. v. CAMPBELL. 7 Div. 841.Alabama Court of AppealsJune 26, 1945 [32 Ala.App. 180] John A. Lusk, Jr., of Gadsden, for appellant. Scott & Dawson and C. A. Wolfes, all of Fort Payne, for appellee. RICE, Judge. There seems no question but th......