
    Cheshire,
    Dec., 1894.
    State v. Hitchcock.
    Upon the trial of an indictment against a person claiming to be a registered pharmacist for illegally keeping spirituous liquor for sale, the offer in . evidence of hand-bills used in advertising certain medicines was properly rejected, in the absence of evidence or the offer of any evidence that liquor was used in compounding them.
    Indictment, for illegally keeping spirituous liquor for sale. Trial by jury. Verdict of guilty. The defendant introduced evidence tending to show that he was a registered pharmacist at the time and place it was alleged the offence was committed. He also offered in evidence five hand-bills of different kinds, as samples of those distributed by him for the purpose of advertísing certain remedies. He offered no evidence that he had used spirituous liquors in compounding medicines, nor what the constituent properties of the medicines named in the hand-bills were. The evidence was rejected, and the defendant excepted.
    
      Charles M. Mersey, solicitor, for the state.
    
      Joseph Madden, for the defendant.
   Wallace, J.

The question at issue was whether the defendant kept spirituous liquor for sale illegally. On that question it was proper for him to show that the liquor he was charged with keeping for sale was kept by him as a pharmacist in compounding medicines. But his offer to introduce in evidence hand-bills, as samples of those distributed by him in advertising certain medicines, was properly rejected, in the absence of any evidence or the offer of any evidence to show that liquor was used in compounding those medicines.

jExceptions overruled.

Clark, J., did not sit: the others concurred.  