128 Mo. App. 214 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1907
Section 1, of an act passed by the General Assembly and approved March 9, 1905, is as follows:
“It shall not be iawful for any druggist or other person to retail or sell or to give away any cocaine, hydrochlorate or other salt of or any compound of cocaine, or preparation containing cocaine, or any salt (s) of or any compound thereof, excepting upon the written prescription of a licensed physician or licensed dentist, licensed under the laws .of the State, which prescription shall only be filled once.”
By information filed in the St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction, defendant was charged Avith a violation of this section. He entered a plea of not guilty and was put upon his trial, which resulted in a verdict of guilty. A timely motion for new trial proving of no avail, he appealed to this court.
The issues Avere submitted to the court sitting as a jury. No declarations of laAV were asked or given. Hence there is nothing before us for review, except the evidence and if there is substantial evidence to support the Arerdict of the court, it is our duty to affirm the judgment, and this is so even though Ave might be of opinion that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. The evidence as a whole tends to show about the following state of facts: Defendant was a regular, licensed and registered physician and conducted a drugstore at No. 1714 Wash street, in the city of St. Louis. King Rogers, the prosecuting witness, on the night of May 21, 1907, went to the defendant’s drugstore and called for cocaine; defendant Avent behind his prescrip
“Ex. King Rodgers, Cocaine Hyd. grs. XII 25c
As directed 1199-5-22-07.
“Dr. Wttwis.”
Defendant testified that the date of the prescription was a mistake.
A regular, registered and practicing physician may at the same time be the proprietor of a drugstore and a registered pharmacist, and may fill, from his stock
The judgment is affirmed.