The Detroit times., 1913-10-21
AID. BARNETT
NOT GUILTY in
DRUGSTORE CASE
Justice Jeffries Intimates That
Trial Should Not Have
Been Started
BELIEVES PARTNERS MAY
HAVE BEEN GUILTY
Special Prosecutor Stone Has
Sharp Argument With Ex-
Judge Murfin

Aid. Edward Barnett. on trial before
Justice Jeffries on charge OF operat'
ing a drug store illegally. in that he
had not q registered pharmacist in his
employ. was acquitted. Monday morn
ing. after a sharp argument between
Warren 8. Stone. OF Mt. Clemens, spe-
cial prosecutor, and former Judge
James q. Murfin for the defense.
Justice Jeffries had adjourned the
case from last week, to give the at
torneys an opportunity to prepare
arguments on the point as to whether
the registered pharmacist must be
registered In Michigan. The testt-
money showed that John H. Wells, one
of the partners In the Barnett store
ut No. POI Jefferson-ave., was licensed
in Indiana, but not In this state. The
language of the section of the act un-
der which the case was brought speci-
heJ that the store must be under the
supervision aud direction Of regis
tered pharmacist"
Mr.. Stone argued the necessity for
a certain strictness In constituting the
law In criminal action. but held that
toe strict an Interpretation would lead
to an absurdity. Judge Muffin CRITICS.
cd the law as clumsy and crude" but
insisted that strict construction was
necessary. Justice Jeffries broke
through the technical argument with
q characteristic thirst for information.
He demanded that DR.. John r. Kes-
tell, from whom the drug store was
purchased, be put on the stand.
Questioned by Assistant Prosecutor
Keidan. DR.. kestell testified that he
still owns the drug store, because the
balance on the agreement to sell has
not been paid by Aid. Barnett H.
denied having anything to do with the
store management since May. but said
he had put up few prescriptions there
for himself and for others. He under
stood that Wells was registered
pharmacist, and that Jack" Gordon.
or Govansky, the chief witness for
the prosecution. had assistants pa
pers. Justice Jeffries didn't like the
line Of questioning, and took the wit.
ness into his own hands. When he
had learned all he could. the court
said:
Il would like to ask question OF
Mr.. Keidan, rather than Of Mr.. Stone"
Does my presence In this case EN-.
barrass the court?" demanded the
special prosecutor.
mot ct ALL replied the justice,
"but Mr.. Keidan is, perhaps, more
aware of the situation. as a regular
member ~ the prosecutors stan. n
anybody else except Eddie Barnett
stood In this case, what would you
recommend? In other words, IL the
defendant had been anybody else but
Barnett, would you have brought this
case on such evidence?"
~Your honor, yes began Mr..
Keidan.
Justice .JefYries interrupted him.
"Mr. Barnett may have killed 40
people. He may have committed any
number Of crimes. But what do we
find? Three men apparently familiar
with the drug bushes, conceive the
idea Of getting drug store. They
enlist Barnetts money in 1t. That
IL Barnett's whole interest. II any
body is guilty. 1t il Wells Gordon
and Goldsmith. don't believe Bar
nett knew anything about druggists
registration. I'm not settled In my
mind whether Wells knew that he
was acting rightly or wrongly. Az
pharmacist. he should have known
the law; Gordon and Goldsmith knew
the law and the regulations, but Bar
nett knew nothing about them. These
men enticed him into the business,
and they conducted the drug store.
The testimony shows that Barnett
was not In the management and con-
troll of the store.
II have serious doubts as to wheth.
or Section IA Of the act. can apply
to the employer Of q pharmacist; but
on the testimony that has been taken,
ind the defendant not guilty, and
he is discharged"
Mr.. Keidan said that he did not
know whether further action would
be taken against the alderman, on q
conspiracy charge. He said that an
attempt could be made to show that
Barnett conspired with Wells. Cor.
don and Goldsmith to evade the law,