WHAT IS POISON?

Manawatu Times, Volume LXV, Issue 1868, 12 March 1913, Page 6

WHAT IS POISON?

THE SOLOID CASE.

JUDGMENT GIVEN,

In the celebrated Palmerston case of the Crown v. Scott affecting the necessity for entering sales of corrosive sublimate soloids in the chemist's book as poison, the Chief Justice Sir Robt. Stout on appeal yesterday gave a judgment which makes » book entry necessary. The judgment is of enormous, interest to chemists and dairy farmers, as the latter, who use these articles extensively as a cattle drench, will in future have to make their purchases in person instead of by post. Mr Loughnan was for the Crown and Mr H. R. Cooper for Scott. His Honor in his judgment said the bottles contained each 25 soloids, each soloid composed of 8% grains of ■corrosive sublimate, *4 grain of colouring matter, and about 3 grains ; of adhesive material, whose purpose was to hold the soloid together. The defendant sold a bottle of these soloids labelled "Poison—corrosive sublimate," but did not comply with the Drovisions of section 11 of "The Poisons Act of 1908" in that he did not enter the sale in his poison book as required for corrosive sublimate and certain other poisons stated in Part L of the second schedule. Part 1 applies to "Every compound containing any of the poisons mentioned in this part of this schedule wherein the active principle of such poison is retained; provided that this shall not apply to any qonipound being sheep dip or to any compound used for the distribution of insect pests affecting plants or crops, although containing poison." , What the respondent contended was that, as there were in Part H. of the schedule "Preparations of corrosive sublimate" that excluded "corrosive sublimate" itself, and also "compound" of it from schedule , 1 If the poison is mentioned in Part 11. it is a poison, and can be only sold by registered persons. There is, however, nothing in the Act stating that if a substance is mentioned in Part H. it is necessarily, and ipso facto, excluded from Part L In the absence of any express statement to the contrary His Honor said he must hold that it could come within both parts. This was supported by Lord Alverstone in Brown v. Leggatt (1906) 1 K. B. 330. His Lordship in that case stated that "no one could contend that a person merely by mixing prusaic acid with flour and describing it as a vermin killer could sell it without r complying with- the conditions imposed, : ' etc. His Honor also quoted Berry v. Henderson L. R. 5 Q. B. 296 and Pharmaceutical Society v. Piper and Co. (1883) 1 Q.B. 686 as further defining the position. The judgment concluded The appeal must be allowed, and the case remitted to the Magistrate to conTict the respondent. Seeing that this is the first case of the kind under the Act, and that the respondent acted as many chemists have done, I shall not allow costs to the Crown. Chemists must, however, understand that the mention of poisons in Part H. which are in Part L does not exclude such poisons from Part I. Judgment was entered accordingly.