a mere sample box of a proprietary medicine or preparation, put up and labeled, "For free distribution," which is actually given away by the owner or proprietor, does not require a war revenue stamp. Opinion of U. S. Attorney General. DRUGGISTS-COLORADO-SALE FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. A provision that an ordinance forbidding the sale of liquor without a license shall not apply to sales by druggists "upon the prescription of a reputable physician and for medicinal purposes" authorizes sales by druggists for medical purposes without a prescription. Prowitt vs. City of Denver, Colo., 52 Pac. Rep. DRUGGISTS-CONNECTICUT-DISCRETION CONSTITUTIONAL. AS TO LICENSING The fact that discretion is, by section 3067, given to County Commissioners in granting to pharmacists licenses for using intoxicating liquors in compounding prescriptions, does not render it unconstitutional, as depriving persons of property without due process of law. State vs. Gray, Connecticut, 23 Atl. Rep. 718. DRUGGISTS INDIANA-DRUG CLERK CAN ONLY SELL ON PROPER PRESCRIPTION. The Appellate Court of Indiana held in the case of Albert H. Caldwell against the state, that a drug clerk is not justified in filling, on Sunday, a written prescription signed by a physician, which reads (as translated into English): "R. Whisky; one quart, for medicinal use." Caldwell, who keeps a drug store in Martinsville, was arrested for selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday, and attempted to justify on the ground that he had only filled the prescrip tion of a practicing physician, which he offered to prove was in the ordinary form used by the medical profession, and was worded according to the regulations of the United States dispensatory. The Court held that the presentation of such a prescription, which does not request that the sale shall be made or the manner in which the liquor shall be used, is no authority for selling whisky on Sunday. A druggist can only sell intoxicating liquor on Sunday when it is actually sold for medicinal purposes, and the druggist has the burden of proving this. Caldwell vs. State (Ind.), 46 N. E. 697. DRUGGISTS-IOWA-WHO IS ALSO PHYSICIAN NO RIGHT TO SELL ALCOHOL FOR ANY PURPOSE. Where a druggist, who was a physician, sold alcohol, to be used in preparing a liniment, and the defense set up that the liquor was not sold as a beverage, but for medical purposes, the Supreme Court held he had no right to sell for any purpose, and he was liable. Decision of Sup. Ct., Iowa, June, 1891. DRUGGISTS-IOWA-PHARMACIST'S PERMIT.— Under Acts 25th Gen. Assem., Iowa, ch. 62, § 1, which provides for the assessing of a tax for selling liquor against persons "other than registered pharmacists holding permits," such a pharmacist is not liable for the tax, although selling liquor in violation of his permit. Shonkwiler vs. Stewart, Ia., 73 N. W. Rep. 479. DRUGGISTS-KANSAS-FORM OF INFORMATION.— An information charging that at a certain time and place the defendant, "being then and there a person not lawfully and in good faith engaged in the business of a druggist, did then and there unlawfully sell and barter spirituous, malt, vinous, fermented and other intoxicating liquors," being within the language of paragraph 2527, Gen. St. 1889, is sufficient; but in such a case it is the duty of the prosecution to show that the defendant, although having a permit, "is not a person lawfully and in good faith engaged in the business of a druggist." State vs. Tanner, Kan., 31 Pac. Rep. 1096. DRUGGISTS—KENTUCKY—APPLICATION FOR LICENSE.— A general law does not repeal a local law unless it conflicts therewith or unless the intention to repeal is manifest. A special act of the legislature prohibiting the sale of spirituous, vinous and malt liquors in the town of Columbia, except by a druggist for medical purposes upon prescription of a regular resident practicing physician, has not been repealed by the provisions of the Kentucky statutes as to the sale of liquor, the only effect of the general law upon the sale of liquor in the town of Columbia being to require of druggists a license fee of $50. The general law allowing a majority of the legal voters of the neighborhood to defeat by a protest the granting of license to sell spirituous liquors does not apply to appellants' application for license to sell liquor in the town of Columbia as a druggist upon the prescription of a regular practicing physician. Court of Appeals, Ky., 1895. DRUGGISTS-MICHIGAN-NOT NECESSARY TO SHOW DRUGGIST WAS NOT LICENSED SALOONKEEPER.— An information reciting that defendant, being a druggist, did sell a quantity of spirituous liquor, called "brandy," to one S., to be used as a beverage, and which was drank on the premises by S. and others, is sufficient under 3 How. St. § 2283c6, providing that it shall be unlawful for any druggist to sell spirituous liquor to any person to be used as a beverage and to be drank on the premises, though the information failed to show negatively that defendant was not licensed to keep a saloon under other sections of the statute. People vs. Curtis (Mich.), 54 N. W. Rep. 767. DRUGGISTS-MICHIGAN-ONE ILLEGAL SALE INSUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION OF KEEPING PLACE FOR ILLEGAL SALE. A druggist who has complied with the statutory provision to entitle him to sell liquor for medicinal purposes cannot, on proof of one illegal sale of liquor as a beverage, be convicted of keeping a place for the illegal sale of liquors. The prosecution should be for the unlawful sale. Maynard vs. Eaton Circuit Judge (Mich.), 65 N. W. Rep. 760. DRUGGISTS-MICHIGAN-ILLEGAL SALES.— Where the complaint alleged that defendant, not being a druggist, sold liquor at retail without having paid the tax, posted up the notice, or given the bond required, and the testimony showed that defendant was a druggist, and failed to show that he had not filed a bond as such, a conviction should be set aside. People vs. Beach (Mich.), 52 N. W. Rep. 1035. DRUGGISTS-MINNESOTA-SELLING LIQUOR WITHOUT LI It is not necessary in an indictment under sections 1993 and 2029, General Statutes, 1894, for selling intoxicating liquors without a license, to negative the proviso in section 2029 to the effect that the provisions of the section shall not be construed so as to prohibit druggists from dispensing liquors in filling physicians' prescriptions. Order affirmed. State of Minnesota vs. John Corcoran et al. DRUGGISTS MISSISSIPPI-NOT LIABLE IF TINCTURE OF GIN GER IS USED AS INTOXICANT. A druggist, in good faith, selling tincture of ginger as a medicine, cannot be convicted of selling intoxicating liquors because the buyer diluted the drug with water and drank it as an intoxicant. Bertrand vs. State (Miss.), 18 South. Rep. 545. OF LAW RE DRUGGISTS—MISSOURI-CONSTITUTIONALITY Rev. St. 1889, §§ 4621, 4622, prohibiting a druggist from selling liquor except on the prescription of a physician, and declaring that such prescription shall be carefully preserved, and produced in court, or before any grand jury, whenever required, and that, on the failure of the druggist to produce the same, he shall be deemed guilty of a misde meanor, are not in conflict with Const., art. 2, § 23, providing that no person shall be required to furnish evidence in a criminal case against himself. State vs. Davis, Missouri. DRUGGISTS-MISSOURI-INFORMATION FAILING TO SET OUT NAME OF VENDEE—FATALLY DEFECTIVE.— Under Rev. St. § 4621, providing that any druggist who sells intoxicating liquors without a prescription, signed by a physician, setting forth the name of the person for whom the same is prescribed, is guilty of a misdemeanor, an information against a druggist for a violation of such statute, which fails to set out the name of the vendee of the liquor, is fatally defective. State vs. Martin, Missouri. DRUGGISTS-TEXAS-NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN LICENSE TO SELL ON PRESCRIPTION IN LOCAL OPTION DISTRICT. The proviso in Acts 1893, p. 177, levying a tax upon the occupation of retail liquor dealers, that the act shall not exempt druggists selling the intoxicants mentioned on prescription of a physician from the tax therein imposed, does not authorize or require druggists in local option districts to obtain a license to sell such intoxicants on prescription. Gibson vs. State (Tex.), 29 S. W. Rep. 1085. DRUGGISTS-WEST VIRGINIA-SALE PRESUMED TO BE ILLEGAL, UNLESS ON WRITTEN PRESCRIPTION. In any prosecution, against a druggist for selling alcohol, spirituous liquors, or wine, if the sale be proven, it shall be presumed that the sale was unlawful, in the absence of satisfactory proof to the contrary; but this presumption may be rebutted by the production of the written prescription of a practicing physician in good standing in his profession, and not of intemperate habits, complying with the requirements of section 6 of chapter 32 of the Code. State vs. Bluefield Drug Co. (W. Va.), 27 S. E. Rep. 350. |