WHISKY FOR THE SICK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14815, 19 October 1911, Page 8

WHISKY FOR THE SICK.

ONLY WHEN DOCTOR ORDERS. POSITION IN DRY DISTRICTS. WAIHI CHEMIST FINED. TWENTY-FIVE POUNDS AND COSTS. [IT? TELEGRAPH. CORRESPONDENT.] - Waihj, Wednesday. An interesting case under the Licensing Act was heard in the Magistrate's Court to-day, by Mr. F. J. Burgess, S.M. Raymond D. Carder, of Waihi, chemist, was charged, on the information of Sergeant Wohlmann (1) with illegally soiling a bottle of whisky to a Waihi resident; (2) with illegally selling a bottlo of port wine to a Waihi resident; and (3) that between July 4 and October 3, at Waihi, he did unlawfully keep liquor for sale. Inspector Wright (Thames) prosecuted for the police, and Mr. Clendon and Mr. - Gibson appeared for the defendant. The case is the first of the kind heard in the Dominion, and involves important law points with regard to the dispensing of alcoholic liquors by chemists in medicinal quantities, and the giving of certificates by doctors relative thereto. The Act provides that it shall not bo lawful in a nolicense district to keep liquor for sale, but the following section sets forth that a chemist may dispense alcoholic liquors in medicinal quantities, for medicinal purposes, upon a certificate signed by a duly registered medical practitioner. Mr. Clendon informed the Court that after consulting with the inspector of police the latter had agreed to withdraw the two informations of illegally selling, and his client would admit a technical breach of the Act in regard to the charge of keeping liquor for sale, and plead guilty thereto. Counsel said the law was so beset with difficulties that his client had been forced, into making a plea of guilty. A chemist had to fortify himself with a certificate from a medical man, the prescription being for medicinal purposes and dispensed in medicinal quantities. The interpretation of the words "medicinal purposes and medicinal quantities," presented difficulties. A bottle might be prescribed for a person with a weak heart, and it was surprising how many weakhearted people there were in Waihi. (laughter.) A chemist, in addition to bt, .g qualified as a chemist, really had to be both a doctor and a very good lawyer. He, himself, was not at all clear that he understood all the qualifications of the legal posit; m, Defendant had undoubtedly committed a breach of the Act in supplying liquor on the authority of telephoned order,'- from medical men, without any ,-«rti';eaie '.Tfeatever. He had! also suppl r . <; liqvrv '-a a " repeat when necessary" order, a tort of recurring decimal affair. (Laughter.) The Magistrate remarked that an order could only be good once. Counsel proceeded to submit that defendant had been forced into pleading guilty on account of the combination of circumstances against him. There was not a single case, counsel submitted, where defendant had disposed of liquor without the authority of a medical man, and he would ask His Worship to take a lenient view of the matter. No trafficking in liquor had taken place. Inspector Wright said he would not unduly press the charge, as the case was the first of its kind, but he could not agree with counsel for defendant that the offence was only a technical breach of the Act. He wished to warn those interested that repetition orders would not in future pass muster.

In giving his decision, His Worship said that in a no-license district no person could sell liquor except a chemist, and a chemist should be careful in using his privileges. It was a chemist's duty to understand the law on the subject. If the regulations had been made as provided by the amending Act, no doubt the position might be clearer, but it seemed to him that defendant had abused tfye section of the Act governing the dispensing of liquor by chemists. As to repeat orders tt re was no doubt that they were perfectly illegal. The Act evidently contemplated that a doctor had to decide whether a patient required liquor or not, axid if a chemist acted on a repeat order iS» was a manifest breach of the Act. T'tth doctors and chemists should be ».>v» .re of that fact. A chemist should keeo a book in regard to the certificates recs'ved by him for his own protection., Dt endanb had been careless, and had made a decided breach of the Act, and one which could not be explained. He could not treat the offence as a trivial one, and, taking all the circumstances into consideration, he could not impose a penalty of less than £25 with costs. Defendant would be fined that amount. .

WINE SOLD BY A CHEMIST.

A GISBORNE CASE.

[BY TELEGRAPH.—OWN' CORRESPONDENT.]

Gisborne, Wednesday.

A case of considerable importance was heard at the Court this morning respecting the question of a chemist's privilege regarding the sale of spirituous liquors for medicinal purposes. Albert Jackson Gurr, chemist, was charged that he did sell liquor, to wit Molendo wine, to Sergeant Hutton without being duly licensed to sell the same. After hearing argument Mr. Barton, S.M., reserved his decision.