¶1Defendant, who is a druggist and pharmacist, was tried and convicted under section 6, Laws, 1887, page 181, known as the “local option law,” for selling intoxicating liquors, viz., two ounces of brandy, in a city which had adopted - that law. He prosecutes this appeal, and asks that the judgment be reversed, on the ground that he sold the liquor on a prescription from a regularly registered and practicing physician, under section 2 of the druggist and pharmacist law of 1883, page 90. The defendant was convicted on the theory that the local option law, in counties where it was adopted, repealed the druggist and pharmacist law as to the sale of intoxicating liquors. We will reverse the judgment on the authority of Ex parte Swann, 96 Mo. 44, where the supreme court decide that the local option law does not interfere with the law concerning druggists and pharmacists. Reversed.
38 Mo. App. 37
State v. Williams
Decided December 2, 1889
Missouri Court of Appeals · decided 1889-12-02
— Hon. J. M. Sandusky, Judge. (1) “ In construing an instrument, the true intention of the framers is to be considered, and when necessary, the strict letter of the act, instrument or law must yield to the manifest intent. ” Riddiclc v. Governor, 1 Mo. 147 ; State v. Emmerson, 39 Mo. 80 ; State v. Krug, 44 Mo. 283. “The law does not favor the repeal of a statute by implication.” (2) “ A legislative attempt to repeal by a subsequent act will not be assumed if any other…
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1913
3 state decisions
Relies on Ex parte Swann
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Reversed · Decided 1889-12-02
View the full empirical analysis of this case →