| Mo. | Apr 15, 1889
— The defendant, was indicted, tried and fined in the sum of one hundred dollars for selling intoxicating liquor as a pharmacist without a prescription therefor from a physician, etc.
1. The case is here by reason of the question made that the second section of the act of March 29, 1883, (Acts of 1883, p. 89) is in conflict with section 34 of article 4 of the constitution, and therefore void. The question thus made is ruled against appellant on the authority of State v. Thruston, 92 Mo. 325" court="Mo." date_filed="1887-04-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-v-thruston-8009031?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8009031">92 Mo. 325. See also Morrison v. Railroad, 96 Mo. 602" court="Mo." date_filed="1888-10-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/morrison-v-st-louis-iron-mountain--southern-railway-co-8009424?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="8009424">96 Mo. 602.
2. The witness Gibson having testified that he purchased from the defendant four ounces of whiskey, it was proposed to show, on cross-examination, that he called for it and that is was sold to him for and to be used as a medicine. There was no error in excluding this proposed evidence, for it is the prescription of a registered physician alone that satisfies the law. Acts of 1883, p. 89, sec. 2.
3. Section 4 of the act of March 26, 1881 (Acts of 1881, p. 130) makes it the duty of the board of pharmacy
There is no merit in this appeal and the judgment is affirmed.