The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1897-07-10
QU!ASAE0|.
The Proceedings
AgainStGuertin.
State Board Revoked
Druggists License.
He Applied to Court For a
Writ of CertiOrari.
Court Decided That the Charge Made
Was Too General.
A Radical Difference Between the Charg:
and the testimony.
Court Decided That the Charge Made
Was Too General.
A Radical Difference Between the Charg:
and the testimony.

The Appellate Court today decided that
of pharmacy against DIR. Aime Guertin
Of Woonsocket which resulted in the on
trance of an order by the board that the
doctors certificate as registered phar
macist be cancelled, must be quashed.
This decision was made on two grounds,
first because the charge preferred was too
general one and in the second place be-
cause the charge was made or tho viola
tion of one law ana the testimony offered
was concerning the violation Of a different
one.
The proceedings today were conducted
by Livingston Scott in behalf of tho
petitioner, DIR. Guertip, who applied for n
writ Of ccrtlorari early the present week
and Attorney General Tanner in behalf of
the pharmacy board.
,Jldge Scott made statement of tho
case which was TO the effect that the state
board Of pharmacy which met in this city
on June 18th. received from John G.
Currier, chief of police of Woonsocket, a
complaint against DR. Guertin for selling
liquor at his drug store TO be drunk on
the premises and the board voted TO inves-
tigate the complaint. Tic notice sent
by the secretary Of the board TO
DR.. Guertin on June 18TH required him
TO attend meeting OF the board TO be
held at Chief Curriers' Office in Woon-
socket TO answer charges OF violating the
pharmacy law.
DIR. Guertin attended this hearing his
counsel stated, and was informed that the
charge of selling liquor at his drug store
20 be drunk on the premises had been
nado against him by the Chief of police.
DIR. Gucrtin Expressed surprise at the
nature of the. charge and besCugbt the
board for postpoDenient OF the hearing so
that be might have an opportunity TO de-
fend himself. I1he board refused the re-
quest for post poneirent and after hearing
the testimonytpffered by the police of the
northern city Hted to cancel the doctors 5
certificate Of rogistration.
After reading 5he copy Of the record of
the board, which had been produced In
court, Judge Scott argued that his client
could not infer what violation of the
laws no was accused of. and maintained
that the charge concerning which testi-
nony was introduced was violation of
the liquor law and not the pharmacy law.
Attorney General Tanner thought that
the two laws were similar and that the
selling Of liquor contrary TO law was q
breach Of the pharmacy laws. but after a
question by Judge Stiness rs to whether a
man could be generally charged with yio-
lating the laws in the statute book, the
states law officer replied that be had had
nothing Co do with the making OF the
charge or the boards doings thereon. Mr..
Tanner also said he would certainly have
done the thing differently, but be thought
the present ease analogous Ia writ. for
the party served with "a writ must look to
the declaration to find out the exact rea.
son he is sued, and tho petitioner in this
case might have inferred the reason the
board of pharmacy was TO investigate his
conduct.
Judge Stness said II was not required
that such charges should be made with
all the certitude required in criminal
pleading. but 1t seemed that the charge
should be reasonably specific.
After consulting with Judge Tillingh6st
and Judge Rogers, who sat with him at
the hearing, Judge Stiness said it was
clear that the record must I've quashed.