State v. UmphreyState v. Umphrey
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Biggs
delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе following indictment was found against the defendant at the March term, 1889, of the circuit court *328of Pulaski county, to-wit: “ The grand jurors fоr the state of Missouri summoned from the body of Pulaski county, impаneled, charged and sworn, upon their oaths present thаt J. T. Umphrey, late of the county aforesaid, on the, seсond day of February, 1889, at the. county of Pulaski, state aforеsaid, then and there being a physician, did unlawfully make out and issuе a prescription to one Sol. Douner for a certain quantity of intoxicating liquors, to-wit, one pint of alcohol, one-half pint of whiskey, one pint of brandy and one glass оf beer, which said intoxicating liquors were then and there used otherwise than for medicinal purposes, to-wit, to be used and drank as a beverage, against the peace аnd dignity of the state.”
This indictment was drawn under section 5476 of the Revised Statutes, 1879, ‘which is as follows: “ Any physician, or pretended physiсian, who shall make or issue any prescription to any person for intoxicating liquors, in any quantity, or for any compound, of which such liquors shall form a part, to be used otherwise thаn for medicinal purposes, or who shall make or issue any prescription contrary to the true intent and meaning of this chapter, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than forty nor more than two hundred dollars.”
The defendant filed a motion to quash the indictment for the following reasons: First. Because it charges no offense against him. Second. Becausе said indictment fails to charge that he was a registered оr legally practicing physician. Third.’ Because it does not charge in the language of the statute the purposes for which the prescription was given. Fourth. Because said indiсtment fails to set out the prescription or to show it was in legal form. The court sustained the motion and quashed the indictmеnt, and from this judgment the state has appealed.
The genеral rule is that an indictment is sufficient, if it charges the offense in the language of the statute *329or in- words of equivalent import. Thе indictment in this case fails to do either ; the very gravamen or gist of the offense is omitted. It only charges that the intoxicants obtainеd on the alleged prescription were used’ as a beverage ; whereas the defendant1 could only be held for a violation of the statute, if it was alleged and provеd that he issued the prescription for the purpose of enabling the рarty to obtain the liquor to ,be used as a beverage. The language employed in the statute will admit of no other сonstruction, and besides any other interpretation would be unreasonable. If a physician in good faith prescribеs intoxicating liquors for his patient, and the intoxicants, thus obtainеd for medical purposes, are actually used as а beverage, it would be unjust to hold that this’ would amount to a violаtion of law by the physician. The indictment in controversy presents such a case, arid we are of opinion that the circuit pourt did right in sustaining the. motion to quash. The judgment will be affirmed.
All the judges concur.