The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1909-11-09
PLEADED FOR
LENIENCY
Unusual Case Before State
Board Of Pharmacy
OF RUTLAND DRUGGISTS
They Present Testimony in Summons to
Show Cause Why Their Certificates
Should Not Be Revoked Be-
cause of Law Violation.

The Vermont state board Of pharmacy
was confronted to-day with one OF its
unusual duties, which was, sitting in
Judgment on the question Of revoking
the druggist certificates Of tiree Rutland
druggists who stand convicted In Rus-
land county court OF violation Of the liq-
nor law in the illegal sale The board
met at the State House in Montpelier
and listened to the testimony OF the
three men, who were III. T. Bnyliss, r.
NJ Barrett and L. A. Miner, concluding
the hearing at about eleven o'clock and
retiring to reach a decision and draw up
report to be submitted to Judge n s.
Stanton, who Is presiding over Rutland
county court.
The section Of the law under which
the session was held states that the
state board Of pharmacy may revoke
the license Of pharmacist who has
been convicted Of unlawfnlly selling hi
toxicating liquor, or for any Just and
sufficient cause The entire board was
present, consisting Of F. G. Bellrose of
Burlington, who presided. d. r. Davis Of
Barre. the secretary, W. r. Warner Of
vergennes. w. r. Root Of Brattleboro
and W T. Gokay Of Bennington.
Mr.. Warner said that he wished to
make a statement to deny the authen-
ticity of a reported interview with him,
in which he was alleged to have stated
that the three druggists in question
might escape on technicality, since the
indictments against them did not specify
the offenses which were charged against
them for illegal liquor selling Mr..
Warner stated emphatically that be had
given no interview on the matter and
had prepared no statement. Moreover,
he said. 1t would not have been proper
for him to pass on the case before it
was presented to the board for considera-
ton
The three druggists appeared and told
their side Of the case. Mr. Bayliss had
paid $500. on three counts in Rutland
county court. as did Mr. Barrett, while
Mr. Miner paid $500 on one count. Their
testimony to-day was quite similar.
They said that they had entered pleas
nf guilty to illegal selling or the advice
of their counsel. believing that would be
the best manner of solving their tron-
bles. They said that they had no per-
sonal knowledge Of the oifenses charged,
but presumed their clerks may have
sold liquor To their friends without 60
ing through the formahty Of demanding
prescriptions Therefore, when sum-
moned to court as the holders Of fifth
class licenses, they pleaded guilty, not
knowing what evidence the state had
secured ia the matter They did not
know the specific charges or when the
liquor was sold.
None OF them cared much about los
ing his fifth-class license, but he did
dislike to have his pharmacy certihcata
revoked. They one and all stated that
they should not sell liquor again. and
they testified that 1t had not been their
custom to sell liquor without preserip-
tions.
On questioning bv the board, Mr. Bay.
liss said lie had been convicted once of
Illegal selling fifteen years ago under
the prohibitory law, and Mr. Barrett
once under the same law ten years ago.
Mr.. Miner said he never had been con-
victed before.
MI. Miner said further that this ex-
perience had taught him lesson and
that he should not apply for liquor
license again, as he expected that the
Rutland aldermen would revoke their
licenses this time
The board finished the public hearing
az this point and retired to consider the
cases
One License Revoked
The board this afternoon revoked the
license Of Mr. Barrett and placed the
nfhar two nn nrnhation.