Court Opinion

ID: 9771648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:50:00.001977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:34.481237
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
GRAVES, Presiding Judge.
*275Appellant’s motion for rehearing herein still complains of the proposition that the information does not negative the fact that appellant was one of the persons who came under the “unless” clause in Section 3, Paragraph (1) of the original statute passed by the 52nd Legislature, Regular Session, as found on page 759 of the Acts thereof. He still contends that the state’s pleading should have negatived the fact that the appellant was, among other things, a pharmacist operating upon an original prescription, and the many further exceptions that are found therein.
We think the answer to such contention will be found in Section 12 of the original enactment, which is also found in Article 726c, Vernon’s Ann. P.C., said Section 12 being quoted in the original opinion herein. We also think the same is in answer to the appellant’s contention in this motion.
Thus believing, the motion for rehearing will be overruled.