Court Opinion

ID: 9792087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:22:51.946725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:40.458094
License: Public Domain

Supplemental Opinion on Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
The defendants in their petition for rehearing, for the first time, raise the question that the opinion is in conflict with 59 O.S.1951 § 344, the material part of said section being as follows:
“ * * * The examining board shall in all cases require each applicant to file his written declaration duly sworn to the effect that he does not habitually use vinous, malt or alcoholic liquors as a beverage, and that he has never been illegally engaged in the business of selling liquors in the State of Oklahoma. ⅝ í|í ⅜
We hold that this section does not affect the result of the original opinion, but we hold that the applicant, in each case, should be required to file a supplemental affidavit to meet the requirements of 59 O.S.1951 § 344.
Since the original opinion was adopted and promulgated the Board of Pharmacy of *427the State of Oklahoma, as required by statute, has prepared a suitable application, form for assistant pharmacist by examination. We find and hold the form and contents of this application to be reasonable and proper and that the applicants shall be required to comply therewith.
' Upon such compliance and the filing of such affidavits with the State Board of Pharmacy the original opinion will stand approved and the petition for rehearing denied.
DAVISON, C. J., WILLIAMS, V. C. J, and JOHNSON, BLACKBIRD and BERRY, JJ., concur.
IRWIN, J., concurs in result.
HALLEY and JACKSON, JJ., dissent.