State v. Martin

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Thomas
• Citation: State v. Martin, 18 S.W. 1005, 108 Mo. 117 (Mo. 1892)
• Decision Date: 02 February 1892
• Parties: STATE v. MARTIN.

18 S.W. 1005

108 Mo. 117

STATE v. MARTIN.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 2, 1892.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS — SALES BY DRUGGIST — INFORMATION.

Under Rev. St. § 4621, providing that any druggist who sells intoxicating liquors without a prescription, signed by a physician, setting forth the name of the person for whom the same is prescribed, is guilty of a misdemeanor, an information against a druggist for a violation of such statute, which fails to set out the name of the vendee of the liquor, is fatally defective. 44 Mo. App. 45, affirmed.

Case certified from St. Louis court of appeals.

Thomas B. Martin was convicted of selling intoxicating liquor without license and without proper prescriptions, and appeals. Reversed.

Nat. C. Dryden, for appellant. John M. Wood, Atty. Gen., and O. H. Avery, Pros. Atty., for the State.

THOMAS, J.

An information was presented by the prosecuting attorney in the circuit court of Lincoln county, charging defendant with a violation of the statute in relation to druggists and pharmacists by selling intoxicating liquors without license, and without proper prescriptions. The case was sent by change of venue to the Hannibal court of common pleas for trial. Defendant filed a motion to quash the information on the ground, among others, that it failed to set out the name of the vendee of the liquor, which was overruled. The information contained three counts. The state entered a nolle prosequi as to the third count; and on a trial before the court without a jury the court acquitted defendant on the first count, but found him guilty as charged in the second count, and assessed his punishment at a fine of $100. The case was appealed to the St. Louis court of appeals; and how it reached this court will fully appear by the opinion of that court, delivered by Judge BIGGS, who, speaking of the failure of the information to give the name of the person to whom the alleged illegal sale of liquor was made, says: "The trial judge was evidently governed in his ruling on this question by the decision of Judge PHILLIPS, of the Kansas City court of appeals, in the case of State v. Elam, 21 Mo. App. 293. It was flatly decided in that case that it was not necessary, in an indictment or information against a druggist for the illegal sale of intoxicants, to give the name of the purchaser. We have been unable to give our assent to that proposition. The general rule of criminal procedure is — and it is fundamental law — that the accused has the indisputable right to be informed specifically of the charge against him, in order that he may prepare his defense, and also to the end that the record of his acquittal or conviction may be a good bar in case he is again put on trial for the same offense. The indictment must be so definite in its terms as to render every right or defense to which the accused is entitled practically...