The King v. Buffum

3 Haw. 462
CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 15, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Haw. 462 (The King v. Buffum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
The King v. Buffum, 3 Haw. 462 (haw 1871).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT BY

HARTWELL, J.

The act complained of is termed an offence by the statute itself, Section 5, p. 263, Penal Code; and is defined as a misdemeanor. Ib., Section 2, p. 1. For an offence within the jurisdiction of Police and District Magistrates, a criminal complaint like the present is the correct procedure. Const., Article 7. A violation of statute requirements concerning licensed physicians is a violation of a license law within the meaning of the statute which makes all offences of violating license laws cognizable before the Police and District Justices. Ib., p. 127, Sect. 9, and of pp. 141, Sect. 47, 142, Sect. 51, Civil Code, p. 7, Sect. 11.

The statute plainly requires medical prescriptions containing any poisonous ingredient to be recorded. The instruction prayed for would set aside the statute, and the one given was extremely favorable.

The record is sufficiently full for statute requirements, [465]*465although if requested at the trial, further specifications would have, been required to be given and recorded. Rex vs. Gillingham, 2 Haw., p. 760. The records show a conviction and a judgment before the Police Court.

Honolulu, August 2d, 1871.

Exceptions overruled.

The Attorney General then moved for judgment, which was pronounced by the Chief Justice, who tried the cause, — ■ $250 fine and costs.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Haw. 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-king-v-buffum-haw-1871.