Commonwealth v. Zacharias

Citations

• 181 Pa. 126
• 37 A. 185
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 515

Syllabus

<p>Criminal law — Druggists—Certified pharmacists — Acts of May 24, 1887, and June 16, 1891.</p> <p>On an indictment for violating the provisions of the Act of June 16, 1891, P. L. 818, amending the Act of May 24, 1887, P. L. 190, relating to the carrying on of the retail drug business, a special verdict found that the defendant was a part owner in three drug stores and received part of the profits made by them; that he employed registered pharmacists to sell the drugs and put up the prescriptions, and that he, who was not a registered pharmacist or assistant, sold no drugs and compounded no prescriptions. I-Ield, that the special verdict was insufficient to support a verdict of guilty, because (1) the special verdict did not find that the defendant was engaged in carrying on any retail drug store in any capacity, and (2) it did not find that the defendant was conducting a drug store “ as manager.”</p> <p>Criminal law — Presumption of innocence.</p> <p>In a criminal case where a special verdict fails to find facts which are necessary to support a conviction, such facts cannot be assumed. In such a case the presumption of innocence protects the defendant.</p> <p>Druggists — Management of drug store — Act of June 16,1891 — Public protection.</p> <p>The purpose of the act of June 16, 1891, is to protect the public by requiring of one who manages a retail drug store an adequate knowledge of the powerful medicines he deals out to customers. It is the “ management” of a retail drug store that the statute seeks to regulate. A passive part ownership is not prohibited by the act.</p> <p>Druggists — Act of June 16, 1891 — Police power — UnconsiitMtionality of exception of administrator and widow.</p> <p>It seems that while the general scope and provisions of the act of June 16, 1891 are within a proper exercise of the police power, the exception in the act discriminating in favor of the administrator or widow of a deceased pharmacist would seem to be unconstitutional but the