State v. Chinn

• Decision Date: 30 January 1911
• Citation: 133 S.W. 1196,153 Mo. App. 611
• Parties: STATE v. CHINN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

133 S.W. 1196

153 Mo. A. 611

STATE v. CHINN.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 30, 1911.

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 155)—SALE ON PRESCRIPTION—DATE OF PRESCRIPTION.

The letters and figures, "Date, June 21-9," are a sufficient dating of a prescription, necessary under Rev. St. 1899, § 3047 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1746), for sale of intoxicating liquor thereon.

2. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 155)—SALE ON PRESCRIPTION — STATEMENT OF PRESCRIPTION.

A prescription on which Rev. St. 1899, § 3047 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1746), provides intoxicating liquor may be sold only if it states that the liquor is "prescribed as a necessary remedy," is sufficient where containing the words "a necessary remedy" without the words "prescribed as."

3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS (§ 155)—SALE ON PRESCRIPTION—SIGNING OF PRESCRIPTION— KNOWLEDGE OF PURCHASER.

Under Rev. St. 1899, § 3047 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1746), forbidding sale of intoxicating liquor except on a signed prescription, it is enough that it was signed before the sale, though the purchaser did not see or know of the signing.

4. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 814)—TRIAL—SUBMISSION OF ISSUES WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

There being no evidence on which to base it, it was error, on a prosecution for selling intoxicating liquor in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 3047 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1746), to submit the issue whether the prescription, on which defendant claimed to have made the sale, was prepared and filed after the sale.

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§§ 811, 807)—INSTRUCTIONS —SPECIAL COMMENT ON EVIDENCE.

An instruction selecting certain parts of the evidence by special reference thereto, and submitting it to the attention of the jury, and directing the attention of the jury to a certain witness and what he stated, is bad as making special comment as well as being argumentative.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; N. D. Thurmond, Judge.

E. H. Chinn was convicted of violating the liquor laws, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.

F. G. Harris and W. H. Rothwell, for appellant. L. T. Searcy and H. D. Murry, for the State.

ELLISON, J.

The defendant is a druggist and was convicted for selling intoxicating liquor in less quantities than four gallons, to James Stewart, without a prescription, in violation of the local option statute.

It appears that defendant is not only a druggist, but a physician as well. The only evidence worthy of consideration relates to two sales to Stewart, one on June 21, 1909, and the other a week thereafter, on June 28th, and it was upon these sales the case was...