State v. Chipp

• Decision Date: 05 November 1906
• Parties: STATE v. CHIPP.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

97 S.W. 236

121 Mo. App. 556

STATE v. CHIPP.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

November 5, 1906.

1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS—SALES BY DEALERS IN DRUGS—OFFENSE—STATUTES.

A dealer in drugs, though not a registered pharmacist and though not employing a registered pharmacist within Rev. St. 1899, §§ 3036, 3037, making it unlawful for a person not a registered pharmacist to conduct a drug store for the purpose of retailing, compounding, or dispensing medicines or poisons for medical use, etc., who suffered intoxicating liquors to be drunk on his premises, violated section 3051, making it an offense for any dealer in drugs to suffer intoxicating liquors to be drunk about his place of business, since sections 3036 and 3037, when considered in connection with section 3043, permitting registered apothecaries to sell medicines and poisons except intoxicating liquors, only aim to guard the public against mistakes of incompetent pharmacists.

2. SAME—INSTRUCTIONS.

On a trial for a violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 3051, making it an offense for any dealer in drugs to "suffer * * * intoxicating liquors to be drunk" about his place of business, an instruction requiring the state to show that accused suffered persons to drink intoxicating liquors on his premises was not erroneous because of the use of the word "suffered" instead of the word "consented."

3. CRIMINAL LAW—INSTRUCTIONS.

It is not error to refuse instructions in substance like those given.

Error to Circuit Court, Harrison County; P. C. Stepp, Judge.

J. K. Chipp was convicted of allowing alcoholic liquor to be drunk about his drug store, and he brings error. Affirmed.

J. C. Wilson and J. M. Sallee, for plaintiff in error. S. P. Davisson, for the State.

BROADDUS, P. J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted under section 3051, Rev. St. 1899, for allowing alcoholic liquor to be drunk about his place of business. The evidence went to show that he was the proprietor of a drug store and dealt in drugs, but there was no evidence that he was a licensed druggist. The fact that he permitted liquor to be drunk at his store was amply proved. He brings his case here by writ of error, and the evidence is all before this court.

The contention of the defendant is that, as the state failed to prove that the defendant was a registered druggist, the offense was not proved, and that he is entitled to his discharge. Section 3036, Rev St. 1899, provides that "it shall be unlawful for any person not registered, within the meaning of this chapter, to conduct any pharmacy, drug store, apothecary shop or store, for the purpose of retailing, compounding or dispensing medicines or poison for medical use, except as hereinafter provided." Section 3037, Id., provides that "it shall be unlawful for the proprietor of a drug store or pharmacy to allow any person, except a registered pharmacist, to compound or dispense the prescriptions of physicians, or to retail or dispense poisons for medical uses except as an aid to and under the supervision of a registered pharmacist." The further provision of the section is that a regular physician may be registered as a pharmacist upon the presentation of his diploma. Other sections of the statute provide for the qualifications and examination of pharmacists and their registration. Section 3051, Id., under...