The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-11-23
BR. ORO0ltR MUST
STAND TRIAL AGAIN
X
fudge Waddan OveErules Demurrer
and Cnse VIII Como Up ON It's
SECOND Trial on December 1.
TEXT OF COURTS OPINION
Nudge Holds That Grounds on Which
Otasx~ Courts Have Acquitted VIII
me- Apply In the case of the Rich.
mond Doctor.

Judge Waddill. Of the United States
District Court. yesterday overruied the
demurrer In the case OF DR.. Boyce ID.
BROKER, charged with violation OF
the Harrison drug act. and the case
win come up for . second hearing on
December /.
d. Counsel for DR.. BROKER had raised
the question Of constituttonality on
tho grounds that It invaded tho police
rights OF tho state ana that action
could be taken under those rights II
DR. BROKER had committed any crime
against the State.
Judge Waddil said this point could
not be maintained. ~ 1t would frus-
Arate the clear intention OF the act
In handing down his decision, Judge
NHaddill read many references and
quoted opinions OF a number Of emf.
nent jurfsts.
'x3rounds on which acquittai had
been secured In two cases--one In
isynchburg and another IN Danrille-
recently, in W.T. tch indictments hat
been secured under the Harrison act
could not apply in the case OF DR.
Brooker." satd Judge Waddill. "be-
cause In those cases tho right OF ply
nician to prescribe the drugs In any
given quantity on a given prescription
ht = given time was the main poin.
1t ISSUE"
4, Congress wasn't 50 foolish as ia
beek TO oveErule the Judgment OF the
DhyAcian a. to tie amount Of a drus
he should prescribe at any given time
pm one prescription" said Judge WAd-
ALL. And 20 Judge Mcdowell could
NOT rule that that was the intention OF
khe government and was accordingly
forced to sustain the defense. In this
case, however. Or. BROKER. the &C
cused. II indicted for the Illegal traf.
Nc In the drug. We Arc not hero con.
prescription he prescribed more thar
was necessary or called for by the
nseds q 4 particular case no waa
jreetinG. Tho judgment Of the ply.
e1clan II not here brought into the
Queation. and 1t is not a matter of the
giSh&S Of physicians to prescribe any
etvsn amount"
II . doctor prescrfbes IN the course
Of his professional practice only os
IN the legitimate practice of his pro-
Res1Son. - another section OF tho act
has it." continued Judge waddill. "hs
dnss not offend the foregoing section
OF the act, which makes It uniawfu'
70 epgage in the sale. traflic. dispens.
ing or giving 4way OF narcotic drugs
q Fac zAW meant that the great army %
doctors In the country at large could
prescribe for their patients. but thai
the moment that q physician was not
Sngag1ng In the legitimate practict
Of his profession or was giving ths
prescriptions not In the couree OF hill
professional practice only. he fell DO
Aeakh the section making It unlawful
b engage In the sale. traffic. dispens.
sag or giving away Of narcotic drugs
The case against tho accused In this
court IN brought on the ground thai
~ did engage in the unlawful sale
tFadic. dispensing or giving sway o.
these drugs"
'Th1B Aot." said the Judge. appears
20 me clear ~ the MONDAY sun II
providing that these drugs should bs
prescribed by doctors in the legitimate
pEact1ce OF their profession only. and
That whom not so prescribed the ply.
m1cian n not saved by the fact tina
he 10 Z physician. but must be liable
under EAe section as any other citi.
Sen. which max ~ II uHIawf to en-.
gage IN tho sale. trafic. dispensing
sAisertbutton or giving away OF thes,
AsueR"