Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-01-27
DR.. WILLIAMS ACQUITTED
ON COCAINE CHARGE
commonwealth Fails to Prove Tha
Prescriptions Were Given
in Bad Faith.
BRANDS AND MILLER TESTIFY
Officials OF State Board OF Pharmacy
Are OF Opinion That SiNty-Grain
Dose Is Excessive, Even for Con-
firmed User OF Drug.

FAILURE on the part OF the Common
wealth to prove that the prescriptions
written by DR.. j. w Williams. 4O1 East
morphine and cocaine were given in
bad faith. yesterday afternoon led to
the dismissal OF the case when it was
called for hearing before Justice
GriEgs in the Police Court.
Nearly three hours were consumed in
the taking of evidence. Detectives Ser
Ecant krengel, DIR. j. Is. Hall. OF the
"estbrook Sanatorium; r. \. Miller,
secretary of the State Board OF Phar-
OF the board, were placed on the wit
ness stand. No witnesses were pro-
dnccd by the defense, for after the men
named had given their testimony it was
clearly evident that the Commonwealth
was not in Il position to prove the
things required by law to insure n
conviction, and commemorative Attor-
neN Minctrec Folkcs asked Justice
Griggs TO dismiss the case
During the testimony of Detective
sergeant krcnGcl ii was shown that
the Commonwealth would have to prove
that the prescriptions were given ha-
bitual users of habit forming drugs in
bad faith, or for the purpose of evadinr
the law. This law specifies that 1t is
miSdcmcanor to supply habitual users
OF such drugs with excessive amounts
nut. according To the Interpretations
there Is nothing to prevent a private
citizen from Keeping large quantities
OF the drug in his house or a musician
writing prescription for a man whom
ne is treating as n patient or whom
does * hDh
GAVE PRESCRIPTIONS no
HABTTUAI. USERS OF DRUGS
several of the men whose names were
brought into court rs having secured
prescriptions from Dr. Williams were
shown to be habitual users. 4 great
many OF the others could not he To-
Gated. and the police were unable TO
prove that they We're addicted to the
use of the drugs. They were also UNI
able to prove that sixty grains was an
excessive dose for a habitual user
Ana so it was on these points that the
case was dismissed
T. y. Miller, in his testimony. said
that he did not think any reputable
physician would give such an amount
as sixty grains at Il dose. He held
mat If the drug lcnd was under the
doctors care. the dose should be de-
creased. and that 1t was absurd to place
practically an unlimited supply in the
''"i'' 'h'' N'li hlIn To- take a
small quantity. The will of a drug
hend is known to he too weak for anv
such course, Mr.. Miller held
MUST HAVE KNOWN
PATIENTS USED DRUGS
The secretary of the State Board Of
Pharmacy maintained that a doctor
must know how much cocaine a man
had been in the habit Of using before
ne could treat him intclligcntly and il
he prescribed thirty or forty grains
h" must have known that he was a
habitual user: otherwise he would have
boo" practically signing his death war
rant.
~ L. Brands testified that n number
of druggists had come to him for adj
vic" rs to filling the many prescriptions
which were brought TO them, and that
he had advised them not to fiji those
calling for large amounts. This stand
had been taken by several druggists he
, said. and he knew Of many who had re-
fused To fill prescriptions signed by DIR
Williams.
DIR. Hall testified that hahituai users
OF habit-forming drugs could take
! thlrty 10 forty grains Of the drug a dav
hut that sixty grains was a large dose
for the most confirmed cocaine ncnd
He recitcd several Of his personal cx-
perienccs to prove that a dose OF ten
grains, three times a week. would be
fatal unless the user was constantly
under the influence of the drug. and had
become so by steadily increased doses.