The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-01-12
INrEREsTTNG TO DRUGGISTS.

INTERESTING TO DRUGGISTS
A druggist was sued In the district
court in Topeka for 50 900 damages for
declining to fill prescription for intox-
icating liquor, for the reason that the
physician making the prescription was
not customer, and was not in the
habit of dealing at the defendants
drug store. Judge Guthrie denies the
petition, and in his decision says:
The second section of the act relat-
ing TO the sale of intoxicating liquors,
approved March 8, 1887, authorizes any
druggist having permit from the pro-
bate Judge, to sell Intoxicating liquors
for the excepted purposes on certain
conditions, and among these, that the
applicant shall, in the presence Of the
druggist, make and subscribe an affi-
davit setting forth the particular pur-
pose for which the liquor is required,
the kind and quality desired, that 1t is
not intended to be used as beverage,
nor to sell or to give away, and that it
is intended only for his own use, and
that the applicant is over twenty
years of age.
Section 3 of this act, among other
! things provides that any druggist or
pharmacist or assistant pharmacist In
| his employ, who shall sell any intOXica-
| ting liquor to any person who he has
reason to believe desires the same to be
used as a beverage; or shall sell liquor
| where he has reason to believe that the
| liquor sold Is not remedy for the all
ment described in the affidavit there
| for; or shall sell, barter or give away
any Intoxicating liquor to any minor,
any person under the influence of liq-
uor, or who is in the habit of becoming
I gw.&r kn6 ofn IN q
misdemeanor, and upon conviction
thereof shall be fined not less than 800
and not more than $500. and be impris-
oned in the county jail for not less thar
thirty days nor more than ninety days.
and shall forfeit his permit issued by
the probate Judge. and his right to OBJ
tain permit within five years there
after.
We assume that these provisions o!
the statute make it the duty OF thu
druggist to exercise the highest degret
of diligence and care in the sale of in
toxicating liquors to those makinl
application to purchase the same. i
the law has imposed the duty upon the
druggist not to sell intoxicating Ii
quors to any person who, he believes
desires the same to be used as a
beverage, or where he has reason to be
lieve the liquor is not remedy for TIT
L 0COC11DOu DAlO AAAAt1N41 A4es1S
by the applicant, then it follows
logically that the judgement
or determination of drug
gist, though he may be mistaken, mus
be final. 1t would seem that where ;
druggist is charged with his duty, hC
should resolve every doubt in favor o
the law and against the appli
cant. Where the question arisei
whether a druggist shall accom-
modate an applicant with ;
sale of intoxicating liquor, or risk tn
commission of an offenSe against tn
laws of the state, his path of duty i
clear and unmistakable, and it woult
make no difference that the druggis
pave to the applicant an illogical, o
unsatisfactory reason for refusing T.
sell the Intoxicating liquor. The frs
duty the druggist owes is to the state
whether the law is wise or unwise, tn
druggist must not consider. He mus
follow the . law and execute it wit
fidelity. If he does not do so, ant
makes sale forbidden by the law
neither his permit from the probat
judge, nor the applicants af1daVit, no
both, will protect him from the penal
ties of the law.