CHEMIST OR HERBALIST?

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1523, 28 February 1901, Page 24

CHEMIST OR HERBALIST?

ACTION TO OBTAIN REGISTRA

TION.

In the Supreme Court on the 21st, before Mr Justice Edwards, the case of Ayres v. the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand was heard. This was an action brought by Mr Richard Ayi'es, herbalist, Wellington, to compel the Pharmaceutical Society of New Zealand to register him as a pharmaceutical chemist, without examination. The statement of claim set forth that since January Ist, 1881, the plaintiff had for not less than two years kept, as owner, open shop in the city of Welligton both as a" dispensing and homoeopathic chemist, In the month of October, 1886, the plaintiff commenced business in the city of Wellingt on as a dispensing and homoeopathic chemist for the compounding and dispensing* of prescriptions of all kinds, including those of medical practitioners in the ordinary course of business, and during the continuance of such business the plaintiff held himself out to do such class of work in the ordinary course of his business; that the plaintiff had kept open shop in Cuba street fiom October, 1886, to the Ist January, 1900; that since December, 1888 and until January, 1897, the plaintiff kept open shop in Riddiferd street as a dispensing and homoeopathic chemist for the compounding and dispensing of prescriptions of all kinds, including those of medical practitioners ; and that the latter shop had been car. ried on lor some years under the management of one John Castle, who had since the passing of the Act of 1898 been duly registered as a pharmaceutical chemist, without examination, as having kept as manager in Riddiford street open shop as a dispensing and homoeopathic chemist. On the 19th June, 1839, the plaintiff duly applied to be registered as a pharmaceutical chemist pursuant tq subsection 2 of section '27 of the Pharmacy Act, 1898, and subsequently ledged with the defendant society, in support of such application, declarations proving the facts alleged in the statement of claim. In November, 1899, the defendant society wrongfully and impioperly refused to register the plaintiff without assigning a reason therefor. Therefore the plaintiff claimed that the defendant society and the board thereof bo ordered by mandamus or order of the Court to forthwith and upon payment.by the plaintiff of the prescribed fees, register the plaintiff as a pharmaceutical chemist, and without examination.

The statement of defence denied the allegations made in the statement of claim,; except so far as they were admitted in the statement of defence. It alleged that the plaintiff for many years had carried on business in Wellington as a herbalist only, and the notifications made by him as to dispensing referred to his business as a herbalist. The de fendant society aumitted receiving plaintiff’s application for registration, and replied .by saying that such application was duly considered by the defendant society, who, after making further inquiries, decided that the plaintiff had not proved the statements upon which he made his application—namely, “that since the Ist day of January, 1881, and before the Ist day of January, 1899, he had for not less than two years kept, as owner, ope a shop as a dispensing and homoepathic chemist.” The defendant society denied that the plaintiff ever kept open shop as a dispensing and homoeopathic chemist, and said that he was never possessed of the knowledge sufficient to do so.

Mr Skerrett appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hislop for the defendant society. Mr Skerrett submitted that the society’s! board had acted in an unjust iranner in refusing to grant plaintiff’s application. The board had refused the application without any grounds whatever, as the proof was incontestable that the plaintiff had carried on the business of a homoeopathic and dispensing chemist.

David Scott, in the employ of Kempthorae, Prosser and Co., said that the plaintiff had during tho past seven years purchased drugs and chemicals from the firm to the value of £ISOO.

By Mr Hislop: The goods purchased by tho plaintiff were those usually sold to chemists and druggists for compounding prescriptions.

Herbert Henton, in charge of the drug department of Messrs P. Hay man and Co., deposed that the plaintiff carried on the ordinary business of a chemist, and purchased from the firm the stock usually sold by chemists and druggists.

By Mr Hislop : Of his own knowledge ha oould not say whether the plaintiff had personally dispensed prescriptions. Could not say that he bought all the ohemicals usually bought by registered druggists. Miss Lark, assistant to the plaintiff, deposed that the latter had kept the shop for six years, and carried on dispensing.

John Castle, a chemist, said he had had three years’ and a half experience of the business in London, and ten years’ with plaintiff. Passed the pharmaceutical examination in 1893. The Riddiford street shop, up to 1897, was an herbal-

ist’s shop. Occasionally a medical prescription was made up from 1894 to 1897 —about once a month. Sold poisons occasionally. While in the Cuba street shop he might have made up a few medical prescriptions. He purchased the plaintiff's Newtown business and had carried it on as a chemist’s shop since 1897. By Mr Hislop : Never knew plaintiff to dispense a medical prescription.

Ayies had not the class of stock to dispel se medical prescriptions, and when such came in they were sent to a chemist to dispense, or they were not accepted. There were no homoeopathic prescriptions dispensed in either shop. The stock was not sufficiently varied to enable homoeopathic or medical prescriptions to be made up. After ivitness passed his examination there was a card placed in the window of the shop, on which was written, “Prescriptions carefully made up.” Did not think the number of prescriptions that came in was more than two a month.

R. Ayres, the plaintiff, said he had been in business for about twenty-one years. Carried on a general wholesale and retail chemist/s business, also a manufacturer’s business. Kept the stock of an ordinary chemist. Opened the Newtown shop m 1888, and stocked it with an ordinary chemist’s stock. Was quite competent bo make up an ordinary prescription. Superintended the conduct of both the Cuba street and Newtown businesses up till 1897. Kept stocks of homoeopathic medicines. Had not conimed his business to botanic medicines, but had frequently dispensed l otner medicine®.

By Mr Hislop : Was a painter by trade at Home, bub had studied chemistry also. Did not understand the prescription (produced) or the symbols used to denote measurements. The plaintiff was examined as to liis ability to make up certain prescriptions handed to him by counsel. He stated that he could not understand some of them, and that if he had received them he would ‘have sent them to a chemist to be dispensed. The plaintiff and Mr Skerrett objected to this line of examination, but his Honor said the reading by the witness of the prescriptions was important as bearing on the question of whether the witness had dispensed prescriptions or not. If the witness could not read the prescriptions and the case went to the Appeal Court he would report the fact to the other Judges. In the course of further examination, witness said he never professed to be a pharmaceutical chemist. It was on account of his assistant Castle having qualified as a chemist that witness advertised “prescriptions made up.” This concluded the case for the plaintiff.

Mr Hislop, for the defence, said that under the 28th section of the it was a condition precedent to granting the plaintiff’s application that the latter must submit the grounds of his application. The board, he urged, had to perform judicial as well as administrative functions, and in the exercise of the f&nner it was justified, in the absence of evidence as to qualification, in refusing to register the plaintiff as a pharmaceutical chemist. He called

G. W. Wilton, registrar of the Pharmaceutical Society, who said the plaintiff could not read the third lino of one of the prescriptions submitted, which any person competent to dispense perscriptions ought to have been able to do. There were also tAvo lines in tho second prescription Avhich the plaintiff could not read. The prescriptions referred to had been taken at random from witness’s prescription file. One of the prescriptions, witness said, submitted to the plaintiff, and which the latter could not explain, contained two ingredients v hich neutralised each other, and that was the reason Avhy the plaintiff did not understand ther prescription. G. Mee, chemist, gave e\ddence as to the definition of homoeopathic medicine, and as to the ease with which any qualified chemist could read a prescription. Was under the impression that the plaintiff was carrying on a. chemist’s business under the cloak of a botanic dispensary. His Honor reserved judgment.