New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1876-05-05
COURT RECORD.
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1876.
United states Circuit Court.

the Following grand Jurors were impanele0:
Elisha c. Baxter, foreman.
Ernest Dumas, Anthony Frederick,
William. M. Dane, Gustave Tournay,
JEFF Harrison. Nathaniel Burbank,
Joseph Manlon, Samuel Bell,
A. j. De Lisle, Charles A. Blase.
William. Warner, Aristide DucOuge,
Remand Bergere George G. Moore,
John Preston, James Ward,
John Mascara, E. Warten,
r. d. Carl, John Ward.
Judge Woods then charged them in his
usual manner, and in addition gave them
these special Instructions:
IL am advised by the officers of the
United States whose duty it is to prosecute
for oftenses, that charges under section 5404
of the Revised Statutes will be brought be-
fore you tor investigation. That section
declares as follows:
"'SEC. 5iO4. Every person who corruptly,
or by threats or force, or by threatening
letters, or any threatening communications,
endeavors to influence, intimidate or I'M
pede any grand or petty juror of any court
of the United States in the discharge of his
duty, or who corruptly, or by threats or
force. or by threatening letters, OF any
threatening communications, influences,
obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to in
tiuence, Obstruct or impede the due admin
istration of justice therein, shall be punish
able by fine of not more than one thou
sand dollars, or by imprisonment not more
than one year. or by both such tine and
imprisonment
are of the most serious character. They
tend directly to impede the administration
of Justice, to bring the courts Of justice into
contempt, to put in jeopardy the rights OF
the citizen, and are subversive of all law
and order. They constitute one OF the
highest of offenees against society. Neither
the rights Of the government nor the righ
of individuals are safe when such practices
exist. One day tho government may be
the victim of these practices, and the next
victim may be some private person in a
civil suit. Neither the rights OF property
nor of person are safe in community
where such otfsnses are allowed to go un-
punished.
Il therefore give you specially in charge
the section which have read. Investigate
thoroughly, sift to the bottom, and if you
find that this law has been violated, pre-
sent the offenders to the court for trial"
Supreme Court.
The following is the full text OF tAe
opinion of Justice Taliaterro:
No. 6l54. State of Louisiana Va. Willis
Holmes.-Appesl from the parish court of
the parish of Natchitoches. The district
attorney of the Seventeenth Judicial Dis
trict, acting upon written notice furnished
him by the tax collector for the parish OF
Natchi,oches, dated September 81, 1875,
brought this suit against the defendant.
alleging that during the year 1875 the de-
fendaut was doing the business OF drug
gist in the city of Natchitoches without a
license from the State; and that he is liable
for the druggists license OF $50, and the
penalties prescribed by law for failure to
pay the license He prayed that an in!unc-
ton issue restraining the defendant,
Holmes, from selling drugs and medicines
in the city and parish Of Natchitcches, and
from prose cutting the business of drug
g;st until he pays for and takes out the
license therefor OF $50, as prescribed by the
revenue laws of the State, and for citation
and Judgment against the defendant tor
$50 as druggists license for the year 1910,
and the penalties prescribed by law Tor
having been engaged IN the me business OF
druggist during the year 1873 without such
license. and for costs of suit. An inJunc-
ton was issued as prayed for. but was dis
solved on bond.
The defendant answered, denying that
he has been doing the business of drug
gist during the year 1875 and liable to pay
the license required by law from persons
en- gagged in the business of druggists he
aydfs that in the sale Of certain articles
which are also sold by druggists he did not
compound drugs or medicines, or admins
ter them, or counsel or advise their use as
medicines: that they are articles generally
used and sold by all country merchants,
and not especially for medicinal use, or by
the advice of physicians, and that under
his merchants license he had the right to
sell the articles claimed to be drugs. tie
prays to be dismissed with his costs.
Judgment was rendered against the de-
fendant Tor $50 for having been engaged
during the year 1875 in the business OF a
druggist without a license, and tor the pen
allies incurred by him in so doing. The in
junction restraining MIN from pursuing the
business of a druggist without license was
perpetuated A motion for new trial was
Overruled, and the defendant appealed.
1t was admitted that the defendant had
been during 1875 selling without license
the following medicines in unbrOken pack
ages. as he receives them from the whole
sale dealers in New Orleans: Quinine in
one ounce, half ounce and quarter ounce
bottles. patent pills of all KINDS, patent bit
tsrs of all kinds, castor oil, laudanum, para
goric, peppermint and spirits OF nltre: FUR
ther admitted that defendant breaks the
packages received by hlm anu rs!alis W
the ounce or otherwise as desired Dy Gus
toners the following medicines: Calomel,
blue mass, Epson salts, borax, gum cam
phor and powdered sulphur. Admitted
further that defendant does not compound
medicines or fill physicians' prescriptions,
and that the medicines specified are gener-
allv sold by country merchants.
The defense in this case IL placed manly
on the argument 0b i,sc0nvenient and upon
general custom. 1t is argued that in dis
tricts at remote distance from towns ano
cities the practice of medicine would be OF
no beneficial use unless country stores, un-
der their merchants' license, were permit
ted to sell such medicines as the defendant
in this case sold, and which are looked upon
bv the whole civilized world as staple com
modities; that the practice OF selling medi-
universal throughout the land; that this
practice has grown into a custom from .
long series Of actions constantly repeated,
and has acquired the force of q tacit con-
sent. r. ia contepded that under the fifteen
dollar license required from each wholesale
and retail merchant, and every retail
merchant according to act NO. "a OF
March 5, 1872, second division OF sec,
| tion one, defendant is entitled to sell
medicines. as it is admitted they are sold
| by him: that medicines thus sold 6y re-
tail merchant form part of the goods ne le
| permitted under his license to sell, ano
| that he can not on that account be reck
| oned in the category of druggists ano
be required to pay the druggists license OF
! $50. 1t is not our province to CONSIDER tne
policy of the usage or custom referred 20
vet we may be allowed to doubt whetnel
fhis universal vending of medicines by per
| sons for the most part ignorant and incom
| netent in such matters is not productive OF
"a much evil as good to the community ct
large. A brief and clear definition Of the
term term druggist by a standard lexico
erapher Or. Webster) is that drnggie:
properly means one whose occupation II
| I'll 1~,, ro mi thOnf cOm nOnn lnG