State v. Gray
| Decision Date | 19 June 1891 |
| Citation | 61 Conn. 39,22 A. 675 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. GRAY. |
Appeal from court of common pleas, New London county; Crump, Judge.
Mason P. Gray, a druggist, having been convicted for unlawfully keeping for sale and selling spirituous and intoxicating liquors, appeals. Affirmed.
Gen. St. Conn. § 3087, prescribes a penalty for "any person" who shall keep for sale or sell spirituous and intoxicating liquors without a license. Section 3067 provides that no license shall be granted to any druggist, unless application for the same, signed by the applicant, and stating the town, building, etc., in which the business is to be carried on, has been lodged with the county commissioners, and that the granting of any such license shall be discretionary with the commissioners. Const. U. S. Amend. 14, provides that no state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor deprive any person within its jurisdiction of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Const. Conn. art. 1, § 9, relates to the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions.
S. H. Thresher, for appellant.
S. Lucas, for the State.
The accused, having been convicted upon a complaint charging him with the unlawful keeping for sale, and with the selling, of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, appealed to this court. Upon the trial in the court below it was admitted that he was a duly-licensed pharmacist, and that he did not have a druggist's license from the county commissioners, having applied for one and been refused. The accused admitted that he kept spirituous and intoxicating liquors, and used them in compounding medicines, but denied that he sold any uncompounded on physicians' prescriptions. The state claimed that he had so sold. The accused also offered the evidence of two licensed pharmacists, which was not contradicted by the state, that the business of a pharmacist could not be conducted without the use of spirituous and intoxicating liquors.
The accused asked the court, In substance, to charge the jury—First, that the keeping of liquors to be used in compounding medicines and in dispensing the prescriptions of physicians was not illegal; second, that the legislature did not intend to apply the provisions of section 3087 of the General Statutes to a licensed pharmacist; third, that, the state having licensed the accused to pursue his business as a pharmacist, the board of commissioners could not by their action deprive him of the right to pursue that business in all its branches; fourth, that sections 3067 and 3087 of the General Statutes are unconstitutional. The court did not so charge the jury, but did charge them in substantial opposition to each of these claims, and said: "If it is necessary, as witnesses have testified, that a man should use liquors in compounding medicines in this state, and cannot practice the business of a druggist without it, then the law makes it a prerequisite to obtain, not only a license from the board of pharmacy, but also from the county commissioners."
We will very briefly consider each of the requests made by the accused. Under the first it is asserted that "liquors, spirituous or intoxicating in their nature, when compounded with drugs or chemicals, for use as medicine, or in commerce or the arts, do not preserve their identity as spirituous or intoxicating liquors; it is against the common reason of mankind. "We think, however, that since it is a ccording to the "common reason of mankind" that such liquors may, and as dispensed by unlicensed druggists generally do, preserve their effects, the legislature, mindful of the mischief, has supplied the remedy and continued the identity, since Gen. St. § 3048. provides that the term shall include, not only "all mixed liquors," but also"all mixed liquor of which a part is spirituous and intoxicating."
The second claim, that the legislature did not intend to apply the provisions of section 3087 of the General Statutes to a licensed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McLean v. People
...v. Muncey, 28 W.Va. 494; Stelle v. State, 77 Ark. 441, 443, 92 S.W. 530; Prinzel v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. R. 274, 33 S.W. 350; State v. Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 22 A. 675; Marks State, 159 Ala. 71, 48 So. 864, 133 Am.St.Rep. 20. 2. Error is assigned because the court refused defendant's tendered ins......
-
State of Vermont ex rel. Carl H. Billado v. Control Commissioners of South Burlington
... ... Christensen, supra, 137 U.S ... at page 94, 11 S.Ct. at page 17, 34 L.Ed. pages 624, 625. See ... also State ex rel. Crumpton v. Montgomery, ... 177 Ala. 212, 59 So. 294; Ex parte Christensen, 85 ... Cal. 208, 24 P. 747; Dwyer v. People, 82 ... Colo. 574, 261 P. 858; State v. Gray", 61 ... Conn. 39, 22 A. 675; State v. Sherow, 87 ... Kan. 235, 123 P. 866, Ann Cas 1913D, 1059; Johnson ... v. Board of County Commissioners, 147 Kan. 211, 75 ... P.2d 849; Burke v. Collins, supra; ... State ex rel. Reedhead v. City of Olympia, ... 122 Wash. 239, 210 P. 371 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Thompson v. Smith
...such acts. Taylor v. Smith, 140 Va. 217, 124 S. E. 259, 263; State ex rel. Crumpton v. Montgomery, 177 Ala. 221, 59 So. 294; State v. Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 22 A. 675; City of St. Joseph v. Levin, 128 Mo. 588, 31 S. W. 101, 49 Am. St. Rep. 577; Brown v. Stubbs, 128 Md. 129, 97 A. 227. This doct......
-
State Ex Rel. Billado v. Com'rs.
...177 Ala. 212, 59 So. 294; Ex parte Christensen, 85 Cal. 208, 24 P. 747; Dwyer v. People, 82 Colo. 574, 261 P. 858; State v. Gray, 61 Conn. 39, 22 A. 675; State v. Sherow, 87 Kan. 235, 123 P. 866, Ann.Cas.1913D, 1050; Johnson v. Board of Commissioners of Reno County, 147 Kan. 211, 75 P.2d 84......