LAWYERS REPORTS ANNOTATED NEW SERIES. INDIANA SUPREME COURT. drugs without a prescription. NISWONGER V. STATE arose under a statute making it unlawful for any druggist "or any other person" to sell cocaine except upon the written prescription of a duly registered physician, veterinary, or dentist, and it was held that under such a statute, no one, not even a duly licensed physician, has a right to sell cocaine without a prescription. sale of drugs ment by police. 2. Upon prosecution of one for illegal sale of drugs, evidence is admissible that the sale was procured by the prosecuting witness with money furnished by the police for the purpose of affecting the credibility of the evidence of the prosecution. New trial-discretion to overrule. 3. There is no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in overruling a motion for new trial in a criminal case which of the judgment, where the statute requires is not filed until eighty days after rendition it to be filed within thirty days from the date of the verdict. (June 17, 1913.) sell | the drug. It was held that under such a statute, proof that one who is charged with selling one of the prohibited drugs (morphine in this case) without a prescription is a physician, is not enough to exonerate him. Under such a statute, the inere fact that he is a physician does not give him the right to sell such drugs without any other prescription than such as he may orally make to the patient at the time of the sale. Unless he shows that he prescribed the drug and kept the required record, he is in no better position than any other illegal seller. Only one other case has been found passing upon the right of a physician to sell drugs without a prescription, and that case is in harmony with the NISWONGER CASE. In State v. Jones, 18 Or. 256, 22 Pac. 840, the statute prohibited the sale or giving away of certain named drugs except to those who should present a prescription for the same from a physician or a regularly qualified pharmacist, and required the parties so selling to retain the prescription and keep it open for public inspection, and further provided that physicians or pharmacists who should prescribe any of the drugs named in the act should keep a record, which should be open to public inspection, of all cases in which they had prescribed such drugs, stating the date of prescription, the name and residence of the patient, the disease for which the drug was prescribed, and how much and how often the patient was instructed to use medicine containing In People v. Moorman, 86 Mich. 433, 49 N. W. 263, a physician was charged with selling drugs without having a license as a pharmacist as the statute required, and it was said that under the statute which exempted from its operation only practising physicians who "did not keep open shop for the retailing, dispensing, or compounding of medicines or poisons," if a physician wished to keep open shop, or in other words a drug store, he must come under the same regulations as other persons. He has no more right than any other person to step into a drug store and to compound or sell drugs, medicines, or poisons to one not his patient. It may be that he is as competent to do this as a registered pharmacist, but he has no vested right to do so. H. C. Sh. |