LIQUOR LAW. SIGNS. A sign attached to a lamp post outside a saloon is not within the inhibition of the Warner-Cramton law. September 16, 1909. Mr. Henry G. Reek, Prosecuting Attorney, Ludington, Michigan. Dear Sir-Replying to your letter of the 14th instant we enclose herewith a copy of an opinion given William B. Brown, Prosecuting Attorney of Kent County, under date of September 15th, 1909, which covers the questions submitted by you with the possible exception of the question as to sign attached to a lamp post in front of the building. I do not think a sign attached to a lamp post can be said to be "attached to" or "appear upon" the outside within the meaning of the statute. Very respectfully yours, JNO. E. BIRD, LIQUOR LAW. WHOLESALE DEALERS. Sale of alcohol or other liquors to retail druggists in this state. September 16, 1909. Mr. R. H. Bradley, Sec. and Treas., The Walding Kinnan & Marvin Co., Wholesale Druggists, Toledo, Ohio. Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your letter of the 4th instant in which you state that your company sells intoxicating liquors, principally alcohol, to retail druggists in Michigan through agents or salesmen, and desire to know whether or not the company is required to comply with the provisions of the General Liquor Law of this state. For reply thereto would say that Act 313, Public Acts of 1887, as amended by Act 291, Public Acts of 1909, provides for the taxation, licensing and regulation of the business of manufacturing, selling, keeping for sale, furnishing, giving or delivering spirituous and intoxicating liquors and malt, brewed, or fermented liquors and vinous liquors in this state. Section 1 of that act contains the following provision: "Any person or persons, partnership or corporation, being non-residents of the State of Michigan, who shall in this state sell the liquor referred to in this act at wholesale, by or through agents, salesmen or other persons, soliciting or doing business in this state, shall pay the same license fee as is provided in this section for resident person, persons, partnerships and corporations. Such license fee shall be paid by said non-resident person, persons, partnerships and corporations into the state treasury to the credit of the general fund. The auditor general shall issue to such person, persons, partnership or corporation so paying said license fee, a receipt which shall authorize such non-resident person, persons, partnership or corporation, to sell such liquors at wholesale in the State of Michigan in compliance with the provisions of this act, and a copy of such receipt certified by the auditor general shall be placed in the hands of each agent, salesman or other person soliciting or doing business in this state as the representative of the non-resident person, persons, partnership or corporation paying the tax: Provided, That such non-resident person, persons, partnership or corporation shall, before commencing such business and on or before the first day of May in each and every year thereafter, make, execute and deliver to the treasurer of the State of Michigan, a bond, the sufficiency of which shall be determined by the auditor general and attorney general of the State of Michigan, to the people of the State of Michigan in the sum of three thousand dollars with sufficient surety, which surety shall be any surety company which is authorized to do business within this state, and which bond shall comply as near as may be with the requirements of this act. It shall not be lawful for any representative of such non-resident person, persons, partnership or corporation to solicit or do business in this state, until such bond has been filed and approved and such license fee has been paid." It is my opinion that your company is required to comply with this provision of the statute before it is entitled to sell alcohol or other liquors to retail druggists in this state through agents or salesmen. The Auditor General will furnish blank forms for application and bond upon request. Respectfully yours, LIQUOR LAW. HOLIDAYS. Saturday afternoon is not a holiday within the prohibition of the General Liquor Law. Mr. F. Connolley, Ewen, Michigan. September 16, 1909. Dear Sir-In reply to your telegram of the 3rd instant in which you ask: "Is Saturday afternoon a legal holiday and will saloons have to close?" Will say that Section 1 of Act 246, Public Acts of 1909, designates Saturday as a "half holiday." The same section contains this proviso: "Provided, That in construing this section, every Saturday unless a whole holiday, as aforesaid, shall for the holding of court and the transaction of any business authorized by the laws of this state be deemed a secular or business day." In view of the above proviso I am of the opinion that when Saturday is not a whole holiday by reason of its being one of the days otherwise designated as a holiday, saloons would be entitled to remain open. The proviso above quoted, in my judgment, places Saturday afternoon outside of the prohibition in the general liquor law relative to keeping open saloons on legal holidays. Very respectfully yours, JNO. E. BIRD, GENERAL LIQUOR LAW. VILLAGES. A village having a population of less than a thousand may extend the hours of closing under the provisions of Sec. 17 of the General Liquor Law. Mr. Edward Jennings, Pinconning, Michigan. September 16, 1909. Dear Sir-We are in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant requesting our opinion as to the right of the common council of the village of Pinconning to extend the period during which saloons may be open from six a. m. to eleven o'clock p. m. In reply thereto will say that Section 17 of Act 291, Public Acts of 1909, contains this proviso: "Provided, That in all cities, incorporated villages and townships of not less than one thousand population, exclusive of villages, where there is police protection, the common council, or board of trustees, or council, or township board, may by ordinance allow the saloons and other places where said liquor shall be sold to open at six o'clock in the forenoon and to remain open not later than eleven o'clock in the afternoon and no longer of any week day night, except on election days and holidays." I am of the opinion any incorporated village, regardless of population, may extend the closing hours under this proviso. I note, however, that you state that the council passed a resolution giving this privilege. This permission can only be granted by ordinance passed in accordance with the provisions of the village laws and your village charter. Very respectfully yours, JNO. E. BIRD, LOCAL OPTION LAW. An order for liquor signed by a physician is not a prescription within the meaning of Sec. 26, Act 107, P. A. 1909. Under that section, a prescription should be in the form in which prescriptions for medicines are usually written. Whether or not a druggist may sell liquor to a physician to be use in compounding medicines, query. The Local Option Law does not make it an offense for a physician to write prescriptions for liquors without examination of the patient. September 16, 1909. Mr. Clare E. Hoffman, Prosecuting Attorney, Allegan, Michigan. Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant submitting certain questions relating to the construction of Section 26 of Act 107, Public Acts of 1909, amending the Local Option Law. You ask whether or not a prescription in the following form "Please let Joe Ladick have one pint of alcohol. Date Sept. 4, 1909. Signed, Henry H. Stimson, M. D." complies with the requirements of said act, stating that you understand that the physician should state in his prescription that he issued the same in good faith and upon personal knowledge that the physical condition of the person for whom such liquor was prescribed required the same for medicinal purposes. For answer to this question would say that in our opinion this is not a compliance with the statute. In Caldwell v. State, 46 N. E. 697, the respondent was prosecuted upon the charge of having sold intoxicating liquor in violation of the Indiana statute, which made it an offense for a druggist to sell liquor on Sunday unless the person to whom the same was sold should first have procured a written prescription therefor from some regular practicing physician of the county. The respondent admitted the sale and in his defense offered in evidence as a prescription the following writing: "B. W. Tilford, Druggist, Martinsville, Ind. R. Spt. Frumenti Qt. 1. For medical use. Date, Nov. 10, 1895. B. W. Tilford, M. D." The state objected to the introduction of this prescription, which objection was sustained. The appellate court said: "This ruling is assigned as one of the grounds of the motion for a new trial. The Century Dictionary and other recognized authorities define the word 'prescription' to mean, 'in medicine, a statement usually written of the medicine or remedies to be used by a patient and the manner of using them.' The prescription in question is not addressed to any one. It does not contain the name of the patient to whom the liquor is to be sold, nor the manner of its use. In Edwards v. State, 121 Ind. 450, 23 N. E. 277, which was a prosecution for a violation of the section of the statute we are now considering, the court below sustained an objection to the introduction in evidence by the defendant of the following prescription: John W. Edwards: Let Benjamin Howard have one-half pint of whisky and glycerine for medicinal purposes. Repeat as needed. (Signed) William A. King.' In passing upon that branch of the case, the supreme court says: "The prescription offered in evidence is somewhat vague and uncertain in its terms. It prescribes whisky and glycerine, but gave no direction as to the proportions in which they are to be used. There is no direction as how frequently or in what quantities it shall be taken. It is left to the judgment of the patient." In State v. Bluefield Drug Co., 27 S. E. Rep. 350, which was a prosecution for the sale of intoxicating liquors by a druggist, it was held that the following was sufficient: * "Prescription: Bluefield Drug Co., Bland Street, Bluefield, W. Va., May 9, 1894. Prescriptions accurately compounded day or night. For Mr. Gibson: R. Spts. Fermenti ojj. This spirits is absolutely necessary as a medicine for the person named above, and is not to be used as a beverage. No. 10. Dickie, M. D." The court there said: "Now, what is a prescription? Webster defines it thus: (Med.). A direction of a remedy or of remedies for a disease, and the manner of using them; a medical recipe; also a prescribed remedy.' In the prescription before us two pints of spirits are prescribed for Mr. Gibson as absolutely necessary for him as a medicine, and not to be used as a beverage. Thus, the manner of using it is prescribed, and the amount is prescribed. As we understand it, where a remedy is prescribed by a physician for a patient, and addressed to a druggist, when such prescription is presented to the druggist he at once understands that the drug or medicine is to be furnished to the party presenting the prescription, and he proceeds to fill it. The physician does not draw an order on the druggist re questing him to furnish the article, but he prescribes it for the patient; and this mode of prescribing for the patient is what is contemplated by the statute when it provides that no sale of spirituous liquors or wine shall be made by any druggist, under the provisions of this chapter, except upon the written prescription of a practicing physician, etc. In this case, we think, a proper prescription was presented." Section 26 of Act 107, Public Acts of 1909, authorizes druggists to sell intoxicating liquors for medicinal purposes, but only upon the written prescription of a regular practicing physician, and provides further "that the physician making such prescription shall state therein the name of the person for whom such liquor is prescribed, the kind and quantity of liquor prescribed, and shall issue the same in good faith and upon personal knowledge that the physical condition of the person for whom such liquor is prescribed requires the same for medicinal purposes." It is our opinion that under this provision of the statute a mere order upon a druggist, signed by a physician, to deliver a certain quantity of liquor to a certain person is not a compliance therewith. The prescription should be in the form in which prescriptions for medicines are commonly written and should specify the manner of using the liquor prescribed. It is not, however, in our judgment, necessary that the physician. should state in the prescription that the same is issued in good faith and upon his personal knowledge that the physical condition of the person for whom the liquor was prescribed requires the same for medicinal purposes. The statute does not say that this must appear in the prescription, but that the physician shall only issue the same upon his personal knowledge that such is the case. With reference to the question asked as to whether or not a druggist may sell liquor to a physician upon an order for "one pint of whiskey for self" or "one pint of whiskey to be used in compounding medicines" would say that a druggist should only sell liquor to a physician for medicinal purposes upon the prescription of such physician, or the prescription of some other regular practicing physician. Whether or not a druggist may sell liquor to a physician to be used in compounding medicines, depends upon whether or not a sale for that purpose is a sale for chemical purposes. If such a sale is a sale for chemical purposes, the physician should make the sworn application provided for in the statute. The question of whether or not liquor used in compounding medicines is used for a chemical purpose, is one that would depend upon the testimony of experts, and which we are unable to answer. For answer to your question as to whether or not the law provides any punishment that may be imposed upon a physician issuing a certificate to a stranger without making any examination or asking any questions to ascertain the patient's need for liquor, would say that I am unable to find any provision in the law applicable to such a case. Further answering your letter would say that it is our opinion that neither a physician who issues a prescription to a stranger without examination or inquiry nor the stranger himself could be prosecuted under the general law for obtaining goods under false pretenses. This department has ruled that druggists are required to file with |