The true northerner. [volume] (Paw Paw, Mich.) 1855-1920, 1906-04-13
Pushing Hard on the L'd.
Judge Dssvoignes Evidences Pur-
pose to Hold IT Down.

Judge DesV oignes, in his charge to
the jury in the Miller case, has nailed
the lid down tight and we have every
reason to believe that the supreme court
will keep it nailed At any rate the po-
sition taken by the Judge that drug
gist is not necessarily excused from liza
bilities because the purchaser states to
him that the liquor is for medicinal, sac
poses, makes it the duty of the druggist
to make such sale in perfect good faith.
For instance, if a druggist should sell a
person pint OF whiskey and the next
day repeat it and on the subsequent day
do the same thing, it is the duty of the
druggist in such case to be on his in
quiry and not close his eyes to the fact
that an unusual amount of liquor is be-
ing sold to this man.
He charged the jury that the law re-
quires druggist TO make report each
week to the prosecuting attorney, giving
the details OF each sale, the full name of
the party to WHOM sold and the purposes
for which it was obtained. II it appears
from the record of the sales reported to
the authorities by the druggist himself
that a large quantity of intoxicating
liquors are being sold, and to many diff
ferent persons, that would be circum-
Stanpa for than, ~ copS;dar tand;nr, n
wards the good faith of the respondent
In the conduct of the business.
He further charged the jury that they
should keep in mind the size of the vii
lage, the number of inhabitants in it aud
the community outside, in which the
druggist resides and carries on his bust
ness. If they find his sales are of such
enormous quantity as to clearly indicate
to any man that it is unusual, then that
is circumstance to be considered as to
whether the druggist is acting in perfect
good faith or not. In other words a
druggist is not protected under his bond
in carrying on the traffic and the bust
ness of selling Intoxicating liquors as a
beverage. 1t is also question to be
considered that a druggist cannot rely
on the statement of the purchaser of
liquor as to the purpose for which it is
desired, as an excuse where there was a
violation of the law. If he is not acting
in perfect good faith in view of all Fhe
circumstances, he cannot take the state
ment of the purchaser and rely upon it
as the truth if all the facts and circum-
stances az the time of purchase plainly
Indicate, so that a man of ordinary intel
ligence and ordinary prudence would
have every reason to believe that he de.
sired the liquors for the purpose of a bev.
erege and not to be used for purposes
permitted under the statute.
He must also write the full name oil
the purchaser in the record of his sales
and this means nothing more or less than
the full christian name OF the purchaser
In other words. if one Judson j. Roe
purchased liquor of druggist and hC
was entered in the liquor register as
j Roe, and if it was found to be fac
that the full name of such purchase
was not recorded there, this would be al
illegal sale and not made in complanc,
with the law Again, if a druggis
should enter upon his record a sale mad,
to Mrs. Smith, and the name of sucl
purchaser was Rebecca Smith and it wa
found to be fact that the druggist haC
not entered the full name of the pur
chaser upon the liquor register, the sal,
would be an illegal one and not made il
compliance with the law.
The Judge then goes on to say that tn
! jury should take into consideration al
the circumstances surrounding the sale
amount, and in making up their decision
/ they should consider the plumber of in
habitants in the village and the sur
rounding country in which the druggis
resides. For instance, if he lives in
/ town containing 900 inhabitants and hi
record shows that the sales of hard liquo
and beer were 1000 in number. or tina
he had sold to 1000 different person
during the month, and that the tota
value of such sale had run into the hun
dreds of dollars, that would be circum
stance for them to consider whether O
not such sales were made in complianc
with the law, or whether he was no
keeping an open place for the sale c
liquors as a beverage. This would be
strong circumstance tending to sho,
that such druggist was keeping plac
and was not selling liquors as druggis
or pharmacist as contemplated under tn
local option law of this county.
Acting under this charge, togethe
with the other evidence before the jury
they brought in a verdict of guilty. Th
position taken by the Court in this ma
ter will, if sustained, do more towards re
strcting the sale of intoxicating liquor
in ouI county than all of the work don
prior to this time.