WHAT IS POISON ? A TEST CASE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 46, 24 February 1913, Page 2

WHAT IS POISON ? A TEST CASE

IMPORTANT TO 'CHEMISTS.' (BT IKLEOBAPH—SPEOIAI. 30 THB tOM.) PALMERSTON N., This Day. Poisons were much discussed in an appeal case before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert' Stout, here* on Saturday. Post readers will remember that some months ago a Palmerston land agent named Sutcliffe committed suicide by swallowing a whole bottleful of 25 pellets or tabloids, or "soloids" as they are now called, of corrosive sublimate — purplish looking things which, dissolved in water, are used as a drench for dairy cows, In the course of the enquiry it was stated _ that these soloids contain pure corrosive sublimate to the extent of three-quarters of their bulk. The remaining quarter ib colouring matter (to make them look the deadly poison they are) and adhesive matter to make the crystal particles stick together. After the enquiry the veterinary chemist, Mr. Scott, was proceeded against by the Crown on a test caae on a charge of having omitted to have the" sale booked, as required by the Sale of Poisons Act. j The defence then set tip by the chemist through his counsel, Mr. H. R. Cooper, was that it was customary in the trade not to book the sales of these soloids, but to treat them as belonging to those preparations of schedule 11., for which poison labels were all that waa required. It was then contended that the soloids were neither "corrosive sublimate" nor a "compound" of 1 it' and, therefore, did not belong to schedule I. It was stated that 25,000 soloids were sold around Palmerston in a season, chiefly through the post office, and that the Department of Agriculture sent out thousands every year. It would cause great inconvenience to dairy farmers if they had to come to town to sign the book'foi- these' purchases. The defence was successful, the Magistrate, Mr. A. D.. Thomson, holding. that .the sdloids were neither corrosive sublimate itself nor in the teclinical sense a compound, but a "preparation," and signing was not necessary under the Act. The Crown appealed against this judgment. In the t argument on Saturday the Crown Solicitor, Mr. C. A. Loughnan, contended that the soloids were either a "compound" of corrosive sublimate in the common meaning of the term, or' they were "corrosive sublimate" itself, inasmuch as the active principle of that poison was not changed by what was mixed 'with it. Tha added matter was, ho said, merely a Vehicle. ' Mr. Cooper contended that they answered the definition of "preparation," that they were not * 'corrosive sublimate simplicity," and that they certahily were not in the chemical sense a "compound." • The Chief Justice: Do you say that' strychnine and flout? and water would not be strychnine within the meaning of 'schedule I ? , • Mr. Cooper : It would be a "prepara- . tion." His Honour i Then it would make a fool 6f the law, Mr. Cooper : That ia the law's own fault. (Laughter.) His Honour : It would wean that' schedule I. could be wiped out. Mr. Cooper ; It has been held that prussic acid and rosewater were a "preparation.*' His Honour : But in that case rb was a medicinal preparation, prepared for ■medical use. You don t say because there is poison in a medicine ? — — Mr, Cooper : I say ' we don't need to ! sign< | Sis Honour ; And „you say you nan .exclude everything from schedule' I. if you mix water 'with it ? ' ,', Mr. Cooper': Possibly so, your Honour. Finallyi judgment was reserved.