State v. Hamlett

• Decision Date: 19 May 1908
• Citation: 212 Mo. 80,110 S.W. 1082
• Parties: STATE v. HAMLETT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

110 S.W. 1082

212 Mo. 80

STATE v. HAMLETT.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 19, 1908.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—RECORD—MOTION TO DISMISS—BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

Where a motion to dismiss a prosecution in the circuit court is not preserved in the record, with timely exceptions to the order overruling it, the action of the court is not subject to review.

2. STATUTES—ACTS RELATING TO MORE THAN ONE SUBJECT—DIFFERENT OFFENSES—CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS.

Const. art. 4, § 28 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 185), providing that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, has no application to a section of a statute which makes the commission of different acts misdemeanors and provides separate punishments for the commission of such acts, providing the offenses defined are germane to the title and subject of the act.

3. SAME—DRUGGISTS—VIOLATIONS OF STATUTORY REGULATIONS.

Rev. St. 1899, § 3045 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 1745), under the chapter relating to druggists and their licenses, makes it a misdemeanor to procure or attempt to procure registration as a pharmacist by false representation, and provides a certain punishment. A second subdivision of that section makes it an offense for one not a registered pharmacist to conduct a pharmacy or place where medicines are compounded or dispensed, and provides for the punishment of that misdemeanor. Held, that both misdemeanors defined by that section are germane to the title and subject, and the section is not unconstitutional on the ground that it contains more than one subject.

4. DRUGGISTS—POWER TO REGULATE—POLICE POWER—PUBLIC HEALTH.

The General Assembly has power to regulate the business of druggists by appropriate legislation, and may prohibit others than registered pharmacists from conducting a drug store; for, whenever the pursuit of any particular occupation or profession requires skill, integrity, knowledge, or other personal attributes or characteristics in the person pursuing it, for the protection of the lives or the health of the public, the General Assembly may pass proper measures to assure that none but persons of such qualifications should pursue the calling.

5. SAME—ILLEGALLY CARRYING ON BUSINESS —CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS—EVIDENCE.

Evidence held sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegally conducting a drug store.

6. CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL—REVIEW — VERDICT —CONCLUSIVENESS.

The Supreme Court will not undertake to retry a criminal cause, where there is substantial evidence to sustain the finding of the jury.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County; David H. Eby, Judge.

Sterling P. Hamlett was convicted of unlawfully conducting a drug store, and he appeals. Affirmed.

See 107 S. W. 1012, 1015.

This cause comes to this court by appeal on the part of the defendant from a judgment of the circuit court of Pike county convicting the defendant of unlawfully conducting a drug store, being a place of retailing, compounding, and dispensing physicians' prescriptions, drugs, medicines, and chemicals for medicinal use, without being at said time a registered pharmacist, as provided by law, and without keeping constantly in his employ a competent pharmacist or druggist. On January 31, 1907, the prosecuting attorney of Pike county filed an information with a justice of the peace of that county charging the defendant with conducting a drug store and dispensing drugs, medicines, etc., for medicinal use, without being a registered pharmacist, and without keeping in his employ a competent pharmacist or druggist. A conviction resulted in the trial before the justice of the peace. From that judgment an appeal was taken to the circuit court of Pike county, where the defendant was again tried by a jury, and again convicted, and his punishment assessed at a fine of $100. The state's evidence tended to prove that during the 12 months prior to the filing of the information herein the defendant was engaged in business in the town of Ashley, in Pike county, Mo. The defendant owned a store building on one of the principal streets of that town, had a sign "Drug Store" over the front door, and kept wine, whisky, drugs, poisons, and medicines, such as are usually kept in a retail drug store. On the shelves in said store there were a large number of bottles containing medicines, some in liquid and some in solid form. These bottles had labels on them, and the words and abbreviations were in Latin. The evidence also showed that the defendant did not at all times have in his employ a registered pharmacist, and that he was not a registered pharmacist himself. During that time the defendant sold wine, whisky, drugs, poisons, and medicines to various persons at retail. The evidence further showed that the defendant kept paint, putty, glass, oils, and other articles such as are usually kept in drug stores and hardware stores. The defendant's evidence tended to prove that he did keep the articles referred to, but that he did not sell them, except in original packages, and that a part of said 12 months he did have a registered pharmacist in his employ, to wit, Dr. Adolph Henning; but Dr. Henning did not testify. At the close of the evidence the court fully instructed the jury upon the law as applicable to the facts of this case, and the cause was submitted to them. As heretofore stated, they returned a verdict finding defendant guilty, and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100. Timely motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment were filed, and by the court overruled. From the judgment, which was entered in accordance with the verdict returned by the jury, the defendant prosecuted his appeal, and the record is now before us for consideration.

...