A CHEMIST CHARGED.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 75, 28 March 1924, Page 3

A CHEMIST CHARGED.

» AN APPRENTICE DISPENSES. A SUNDAY MORNING SALE. INTERESTING POINT CONTESTED. An alleged breach of section 40 of the Pharmacy Act, 190$, resulted in the appearance in the Police Court to-day of Frederick S. Murray, registered chcniiet, of Manukau Road, Parnell. He was represented by Mr. A. H. Johnstonc. With two prescriptions from a doctor, Constable Wilks went to defendant's shop on the morning of Sunday, March 2, and was attended to by an apprentice of two years' experience. The two prescriptions were written on the one sheet of paper. After they had been made up the constable asked the apprentice to tell him which was the medicine for liis sick wife, and which for the baby. The apprentice said that both medicines wore for the baby. But the constable knew this to be wrong, since the doctor had told him that one of the prescriptions was a laxative for an adult. On inquiry it was ascertained that the proprietor of the shop was absent. The prescribing doctor was called, and lie stated in cross-examination that, even had the mother's medicine been given to the baby there would have been no serious consequences. There was nothing in the Act to prevent an employee from making up prescriptions, said Mr. Johnstone. In this prosecution the police had resorted to section 40 of the Act, which provided that it was an offence for any chemist to keep open a chop save under the supervision of his enrolled manager. If this were to be interpreted in a narrow way it would mean that the manager or registered chemist could never leave the shop. This was the first case of its kind in New Zealand. It was plain in reading the Act that the intention was that no chemist's chop should be conducted except under the supervision of a duly qualified and registered chemist, continued Mr. Johnstone, but it did not mean that he should do all the work in the shop, or that he should not leave it in the ordinary way. What waß clearly contemplated was the prevention of shops being carried on without a registered and enrolled chemist in charge. The Magistrate: It's like the case of an hotel. Liquor cannot be sold unless the licensee is there, but he is not actually on the premises all tho timeSometimes he leaves his barman in charge. But if he is absent for more than 14 days, then the consent of the Licensing Committee must be obtained. Mr. Johnstone also stated that, according to the way in which the police read the Act, it would be an offence if the sign "Dispensary" were left displayed outside when the registered chemist left the shop for even a short while. In this case, defendant had gone to Devonport on the Sunday morning, but had kept near a telephone all the time in case ho should be required. It was eurely not unreasonable that a chemist, working long hours every day, should require some recreation at the week-end. He had been in attendance at the shop that Sunday night. Senior-Sergeant Rawlc pointed out that it was a dangerous thing for an inexperienced youth to be allowed to dispense medicine. The object of the Act was undoubtedly to protect the public, said Mr. .T. W. Poynton, S.M. It was the first case of its kind heard in New Zealand, and was of come interest. He would give a written decision.