SHAW'S SHOPS.

NZ Truth, Issue 276, 8 October 1910, Page 5

SHAW'S SHOPS.

CHARGE AGAINST A CHEMIST. Angry Altercation m Court. Shaw m the Witness Box—" Your Worship, I Appeal to You" — The -Magistrate's Rejoinder— Decision Reserved.

The case against Frank Shaw, of Wellinigjbon, chemist, for am alleged breach of tine Pharmacy Act, the previous proceedings m which were fully reported m last week's tosue ol '•Truth," was resumed before Ma: W. (x. Riddell, S.M., at the Wellington Magistrate's Court on Monday intoming Jast, when his Worship ovex-rul d Mr FitagiiWbon 's preliminary point that the information Was irregularly laid. His Worship held that the Pharmacy Board is not a corporate .body but an administr-a-tive board, consequently it Is not necessary that the information should be laid %>y the board's registrar, although that might be the custpmary procedure. The information,

therefore, was m proper form. The case, accordingly, was then proceeded with. Mr FitzglbDon said the present prosecution was for a penalty for an offence constituted by statute, amid so constituted m express terms. He submitted tfeat ■the shop miust (be fcept open for the dispensing of prescriptions, and ibhat a prescription under the Act meant that of a legally qualified medical practitioner. Exhibits "A" and "D" were prescriptions put m evidence. A "Gazette" had also been put m containing the names of all legally ■qualified medical practitioners, oontaiiffniaigi the names ol ' . DRS. HERBERT AND FELL, whose names are on exhibits "A" and "D," but no evidence had been given to prove that the names upon these two prescriptions are those of legally iqpalified medical practitioners upaa the register. His Worship said he was satisfied that the prescriptions were those of two doctors whose names are upon the register of legally qualified meui-. cal practitioners. Mr Fitzgitobon aslced that tihe point be reserved, and his Worship said that he had noted it. Mr Fitz-gSHbion further submitted that evidence of people going! m and out of tflre shop was insufficient to establish a case under the section under which the present information was laid. i Linden Robert Hugh Aplin was then called as a witness, and he statted that he was a qualified chemist by examination, and that his name was on the register. He said that at the time the detective called he was relieving m tine" defendant's Hotel Cecil branch shop, and he made up the ' prescriptions. All matters of business he said he would refer to Shaw (tine I defendant) ox to Miss Gregory) (tie-

fendant's manager). Witness said that four-fifths of the chemists [Ln Wellington had unqualified assistants. To Mr Neilson, Aplim said he was now looking after defendant's shop m Tory-street. He wrote to the Registrar of the Pharmacy Board, jand received a reply. (Both letters were put m.) i Mr Fitzgibbon admitted iSt&t be I bad been enrolled as manager of tht', | Tory-street shop. | Mr Neilson : Have, you not been i away from the Tory-street shop, I since August 12, more than half the ! time during wbiob the shop- would be open ? Witness : I will say that I have been away about naif the time. Continuing, he said that Miss G-reg-ory and himself were THE ONLY QUALIFIED CHEMISTS who were assistants of the defendant. He would visit the Hotel Cecil pharmacy from time to time on the defendant's instructions. He said thai; Neilson, another assistant ol fEe defendant's, (was jproibaibly as well able to, dispense prescriptions as he was 'himself . Neilsom had dispensed .prescriptions on the last „four days,, mentioned m the information. Frank Shaw, the defendant, said fthat he was a qualified chemist on the register, and that he had three shops, viz., the Manners-street shop,, which 'he mamaged himself, the Hotel Cecil shop, which Miss Gregory managed, and the Tory-street shop, which Aplin managed. He said that he himself supervised the Hotel Cecil shop and the Tory-street shop, and made a practice of visiting each of them four times a day. Neilson was Iris manufacturer, and he did not permit him to dispense prescriptions. Aplin was still m his employ. To Mr Neilson : He had been for a number of years a qualified chemist, , and i had practised at Blenheim' before he came jto Wellington. ' Mr Neilson : Are your qualifications based' on examination ? Defendant : Your Worship, I appeal 1/0 you ; tfie question is unfair. Mr Neilson : I insist. Def endiant : Will it please you if I say "No" ? Mr Fitzgibbon :■ Your Worship— ■ The S.M. : Don't interrupt. I can't have everyone speaking at once \ (To defendant) : If your .qualifications are not based on examination, why not say so ? ■ * ■ Defaredarot : No, they are not. Mr Neilson : Then the notice on your Hotel Cecil shop is A FALSEHOOD TO THE PUBLIC ? -Defendant : It was put there by Fitzgerald. At this stage a heated altercation took place between defendant and Mr Neilson, wnicfi his Worship put down with a degree of asperity. Defendant said that he described himself as a ohomist-optician, awi be asserted that be did the best optician's business m Wellington. Mr Neilson was proceeding to deal with Mr FitzgibjbioTi's points, when Mr Fifczgiitobon also arose. ; His Worship : I can't have you both speaking at once. (To Mr Fitzgibbon) : Mr Neilson has a perfect right to disouss the points you raised. Mr Neilson having completed his argument, Ms Worship reserved hia judgment sine die. I