State v. Bowers

65 Mo. App. 639, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 266
Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 23, 1896·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Ellison, J.

This is a prosecution under the druggist and pharmacist statute against defendant who is a druggist, for selling liquor without a prescription required by statute or other requisite authority to do so. The case shows a sale. The defense seems to have been based on a prescription from a regular registered, and practicing physician. This prescription fails to state that the liquor was prescribed as a necessary remedy, as is required by section 4621, Revised Statutes, 1889, and as such is no ■ defense. The trial court did not err in refusing defendant’s instruction declaring the prescription sufficient. The facts disclosed by the record were sufficient to sustain the finding of the court and the judgment will, therefore, be affirmed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Bowers, 65 Mo. App. 639, 1896 Mo. App. LEXIS 266 (Mo. Ct. App. 1896).

65 Mo. App. 639 (State v. Bowers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Wills
136 S.W. 25 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1911)
Ryan v. State
92 N.E. 340 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
State v. Davis
108 S.W. 127 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1908)
State v. Manning
81 S.W. 223 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1904)
State v. Hammack
93 Mo. App. 521 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1902)