Case Name: STATE, Respondent, v. LA SHIER, Appellant
Court: South Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: South Dakota
Decision Date: 1917-03-22
Citations: 38 S.D. 454
Docket Number: File No. 4007
Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. LA SHIER, Appellant.
Judges: WHITING, J., concurs in views of GATES, P. J.
Reporter: South Dakota Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 454–457

Head Matter:
STATE, Respondent, v. LA SHIER, Appellant.
(161 N. W. 807.)
(File No. 4007.
Opinion filed March 22, 1917.)
1. Intoxicating' Liquors — Unlawful Sale — Vendor Physician’s Prescription as Defense — Not Drunk on Premises, Not Beverage, Effect.
Where, in a prosecution for unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor at retail without statutory license, the evidence showed that in each case of sale the purchaser had consulted defendant as a physician, defendant had written a prescription therefor, and that the ■ liquor so sold had been taken by purchaser as directed by defendant; it not appearing that any of the same had been drunk on premises where sold, or that it had been used as a beverage, held, the evidence fails to sustain verdict of conviction.
Smith, J., concurring specially. Gates, P. J., and Whiting, J., dissenting.
1. Same — Unlawful Sale — Licensed Physician as Vendor, Necessity for Liquor License.
A licensed physician, as such, is not required to take out license under liquor laws to authorize him, in good faith, to supply his patients with intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes.
' Appeal from Circuit Court, Douglas County. Hon. Robert B. Tripp, Judge.
The defendant, Bion AY.. La Shier, was convicted of violating the law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail; and from a judgment of conviction, and from an order denying a new trial, he appeals.
Reversed.
Walker & Gurley, for Appellant.
Clarence C. Caldzv'ell, Attorney General, and Byron S. Payne, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
(1) To point one of the opinion, Appellant cited: Pol. Code, Secs. 2838, 2860, 279; State v. Dunning, (S. D.) 85 N. W. 589.
Respondent cited: State v. Hoagland, (la.) 41 N. AY. 595; AVilliams v. State, (Tex.) 77 S. AY. 783; State v. Lesh, (N. D.) 145 N. AY. 830; Laws 1905, Oh. 123; Sarris v. Commonwealth, 83 Ky. 327.

Opinion:
POLLEY, J.
In this case an information was filed by the state's attorney of Douglas county charging that between certain dates named therein the defendant engaged in the business of selling spirituous, malt, 'brewed, fermented, and intoxicating liquors at retail in the city of Armour, in said county, without having paid the license fee provided by law. A trial to a jury resulted in a conviction, and a fine of $350 and costs were imposed upon defendant under the provisions of section 2838, Pol. Code. Á motion for a new trial was overruled, and defendant appeals.
It appears from the evidence that four different sales of intoxicating liquor had been made at defendant's drug store between the dates named in the information, but that in each case the purchaser had consulted defendant as a physician, and defendant had written a prescription for such liquor and given it to the purchaser. In one case the defendant himself filled the prescription by giving the purchaser a bottle of intoxicating liquor. In the other three cases the prescription was filled by the pharmacist in charge of defendant's drug store. It also appears that the liquor so sold had been taken by the purchaser as directed by defendant, but it was not shown, nor attempted to be shown, that any of said liquor so sold had been drunk on the premises where sold, or that it had been used, as a •beverage. These facts are not sufficient to support the verdict in this case. A licensed physician, as such, is not required to take out a license to authorize him in good faith to supply his, patients with intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes This disposes of the whole case, and it is not necessary to determine the other questions presented by appellant's assignments.
The judgment and order appealed from are reversed.