State v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 09 March 1888
• Citation: 37 N.W. 104,74 Iowa 119
• Parties: STATE v. THOMPSON.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

74 Iowa 119

37 N.W. 104

STATE

v.THOMPSON.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

March 9, 1888.

Appeal from district court, Benton county; L. G. KINNE, Judge.

Defendant, W. W. Thompson, was indicted and convicted of the offense of maintaining a nuisance by keeping a building called a drug-store, for the sale of intoxicating liquors in violation of the statutes. He now appeals to this court.J. J. Mosuat and Geo. C. Scringevin, for appellant.

A. J. Baker, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BECK, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

1. The evidence shows that defendant was a registered pharmacist, and made many sales of intoxicating liquors, upon applications admitted in evidence, signed by the purchaser, and delivered to him, all of which are in the form and language of the following, except as to names and quantities:

Original.

Dispensed by Dr. Thompson, Reg. Ph. No. 2,223.

“BELLE PLAINE, IOWA, September 6, 1886.

“ To Dr. W. W. Thompson, Reg. Ph. No. 2,223.

“I am over 21 years of age, and not in the habit of becoming intoxicated, and hereby apply for:

+------------------------+
                ¦Amount:¦Kind of Liquor: ¦
                +-------+----------------¦
                ¦1-2 Pt.¦Whiskey.        ¦
                +------------------------+
                

Which is to be used “only for the actual necessities of medicine.

T. H. MILNER, Purchaser.”

It is satisfactorily shown that one of the sales, at least, was to a minor, and others to persons in the habit of becoming intoxicated.

2. Counsel for defendant insist that the court erred in admitting evidence showing the habits of intoxication or the minority of the purchasers. Their position seems to be that as defendant held a permit to sell intoxicating liquors, and it was sold upon the applications, one of which we have just set out, no intent to sell unlawfully was shown, and therefore the sale to inebriates or minors was not in violation of the law. But defendant may be convicted of maintaining a nuisance by keeping a place with intent unlawfully to sell therein intoxicating liquors, (Code, §§ 1543, 1544;) and the unlawful intent may be presumed from the unlawful sales. State v. Sartori, 55 Iowa, 340, 7 N. W. Rep. 604. Were the rule otherwise the very subterfuge of written applications of purchasers would enable pharmacists to violate the law without fear of punishment.

3. Counsel argue that under the pharmacy statute defendant could not have “abused the trust” for the sale of intoxicating liquors confided to him, unless he had knowledge of the habits of intoxication or of the minority of the purchasers. But that statute does not relieve the defendant of the “utmost rigor of the law” prohibiting unlawful sales. If the sales are for unlawful purposes, he has no protection from the pharmacy statute, which hands him over to be dealt with under other statutes according to their “utmost rigor.” See State v. Ward, 36 N. W. Rep. 765, (filed at present term.) The question of the guilt of a pharmacist is to be determined under the statutes he violates, according to the rules applicable to other offenders.

4. It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to strike from the evidence all the applications for purchases the signatures whereof had not been identified or proved. These papers were documents procured by defendant, upon which he attempted to justify his acts of selling; he surely cannot dispute them. They constitute evidence which he attempted to make for himself; he cannot dispute it. Whether the signatures are true or false, the applications were properly in evidence to show the facts upon which defendant bases his defense that the sales were lawfully made.

5. It is insisted also that the reports of defendant of the sales made by him, and his affidavits verifying them, ought not to have been admitted in evidence, for the reason that his signatures thereto were not proved. But as these papers were filed by him in discharge of a duty imposed by law, they will be received in evidence as public records. Their...