State v. Russell

• Decision Date: 17 March 1903
• Citation: 73 S.W. 297,99 Mo. App. 373
• Parties: STATE v. RUSSELL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

73 S.W. 297

99 Mo. App. 373

STATE v. RUSSELL.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

March 17, 1903.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS—ILLEGAL SALE—LOCAL OPTION LAW—DRUGGIST—CLERKS—PHYSICIAN'S PRESCRIPTION—EVIDENCE.

1. A druggist is entitled to sell intoxicating liquors on written prescriptions issued by practicing physicians in counties where the local option law has been adopted.

2. Where a clerk of a registered pharmacist was directed by his employer, who was present at the time, to deliver intoxicating liquors to a customer, on a physician's prescription, a sale so made was a sale by the pharmacist, and the clerk was not liable to prosecution therefor.

3. In the prosecution of a clerk of a registered pharmacist for the illegal sale of intoxicating liquors, a physician's prescription, on which the sale was made, was admissible.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Greene County; Jas. J. Gideon, Judge.

William Russell was convicted of illegally selling intoxicating liquors, and he appeals. Reversed.

Wear & McGregor, for appellant. A. B. Lovan, for the State.

Statement of Facts and Opinion.

GOODE, J.

Appellant was indicted in the criminal court of Greene county for violating the local option law, which is in force in Greene county outside the city of Springfield. The indictment charges that on March 21, 1901, at the town of Republic, in said county, he unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor, to wit, one gill of whisky, to William Holding, the appellant having no license at the time, and the sale being made without a license. The evidence tended to show that W. E. Kimmons owned and conducted a drug store in the town of Republic, and that the appellant, William Russell, clerked for him; that on the day mentioned in the indictment William Holding told the proprietor he wanted some whisky, and produced a prescription prepared and signed by Dr. G. B. Dorrell, a registered physician and surgeon, holding a certificate from the State Board of Health. Kimmons, when Holding asked him for the whisky, said he was sick, and he would have the appellant draw it; and thereupon told the appellant to draw the whisky, which the latter did under the immediate eye and supervision of Kimmons. Holding handed Russell the money to pay for it. The prescription was introduced in evidence, but excluded by the court. The appellant introduced the record of the county court to show Kimmons was a registered pharmacist; also the certificate of the State Board of Health authorizing Dr. Dorrell to practice medicine in the state of...