State v. Finney

• Decision Date: 09 December 1903
• Parties: STATE v. FINNEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

77 S.W. 992

178 Mo. 385

STATE v. FINNEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 9, 1903.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS — POLICE POWER — DRUGGISTS — ALLOWING LIQUOR TO BE DRUNK ON PREMISES — PHYSICIANS.

1. Rev. St. 1899, § 3051, declaring that any druggist who shall suffer alcohol or any intoxicating liquor to be drunk at or about his place of business shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, is not void as an unreasonable and unwarrantable exercise of the police power, as against a physician also running a drug store, who prescribes intoxicating liquors for his patient, and allows him to drink them in the drug store.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bollinger County; R. A. Anthony, Judge.

J. M. Finney was convicted of allowing intoxicating liquors to be drunk at his drug store, in violation of Rev. St. 1899, § 3051, and appeals. Affirmed.

Moses Whybark, for appellant. Edward C. Crow and Bruce Barnett, for the State.

BURGESS, J.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Bollinger county and fined $25 under an indictment charging that one J. M. Finney, late of the county and state aforesaid, on or about the __ day of August, in the year 1902, at and in the county of Bollinger and state of Missouri, aforesaid, being then and there a druggist and proprietor of a drug store, and a pharmacist and a dealer in drugs and medicines, unlawfully and willfully then and there did suffer and knowingly permit intoxicating liquor, to wit, one pint of beer, to be drunk at and about his place of business, his drug store, contrary to the form of the statutes in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state.

The case was tried upon the following agreed state of facts:

"(1) That the defendant is a physician residing, and has for more than 25 years resided, in Bollinger county, Mo., and during all the time has been a regularly authorized and registered and practicing physician, according to the laws of this state. (2) That his residence is Leopold, in Bollinger county, Mo., whereat he is the owner of a drug store in connection with his profession as a physician, and owned and conducted such drug store at the date specified in the indictment, and a duly registered pharmacist. (3) That Herman Elfrank was one of his patients whom he had treated for typhoid fever, and during his convalescence he had recommended to him the use of beer in moderate quantities, until his strength had fully recuperated. (4) That the said Herman Elfrank called at his drug store for beer, during his convalescence aforesaid, and defendant prescribed it for him, and first wrote out a written prescription, and dated and signed the same as a physician, in which prescription the name of the said Herman Elfrank was written, he being the person for whom the same was prescribed, and further stating that such intoxicating liquor was prescribed as a necessary remedy, and the amount prescribed was one bottle — a pint; that thereupon, after the writing of said prescription for said beer, the same was sold to said Elfrank by defendant, at his drug store, beer as a part of his stock of drugs, and the prescription was filed and preserved as the law requires. (5) That the said beer was furnished to said Elfrank by defendant's clerk after said prescription had been written and filed and on the same day; that defendant was in his drug store when he wrote the prescription and when his clerk sold the beer, but the beer was in the back room of his drug store, and it was in that room that the beer was kept in stock and was...