— The defendant was indicted for violation of the dramshop law. He moved to quash the indictment, on the ground that he was a druggist and not amenable to said indictment.
Evidence was introduced by him in support of that motion which was, however, overruled. Thereupon the case was tried by the court, a jury being waived, and a judgment of conviction entered, from which this appeal was taken. On the trial defendant objected to any evidence under the indictment, for the reason that
Under this state of the record it is evident the conviction of defendant can not be sustained. It would seem, however, that the same result would have followed if the record had preserved evidence tending to show the sale of liquor as charged in the indictment, which we suppose was adduced by the state on the trial of this case, for the reason that defendant being a druggist is only amenable to the law regulating sales of liquors by men engaged in that calling. The result is that the judgment is reversed, and defendant discharged.