CHEMIST OR HERBALIST?

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4288, 22 February 1901, Page 3

CHEMIST OR HERBALIST?

AIiTON TO OBTAIN REGTSTRA TION. In the Supremo Court yesterday, hoJoro Mr Justice Edward.-;, the case of ■'V’ Tf ”’ r v. tho Pharmaceutical Society of -New /(inland was beard. This was an iie'uon brought by Mr Richard Ayres, borhalist, Wellington, to compo! tho Pharmaceutical, Society () f New ZcaEiiul (,o register him an n pharmaceutical chemist, without examination. /(ho statement of claim set forth that since January Ist, 188), tho plaintiff Jui'l lor not less than two years kept, as owner, open shop in the city of Wolliefon bulb a , ;i, dispoji;-iog ;tllr| honueojnithio chemist, Ju (lie month of Oei .1 -f'-iO, tho plaint ill commenced business in t n-:. ri'y ol Wellington as a <Jis-peii.-nn; ami bmmeepat hie chemist for tbo compounding ami dispensing of pro. MTipUons of all kinds, iiiclnding tiioso of medical practiLionei-s in the ordinary course of business, and during the coutinuance of such business tlio plaintiff lielu himself out to do such class of -work in tiio ordinary course of his busitint the plaintiff' had kept open a.iop in Cuba street fiom October, 1886, to tho Ist January, 1900; ‘that .since Ifccomln*-, 18H8am.l until January, 1807, V ;i! plaintiff kept open shop in K<ddifi rd slroot as a dispensing and horm io-| pathic eh jimist for tlio compoundin'.', and di-l'eu.sing of pn -cripLious of all kinds,l including those of medical practitioners ; j cud that the Jailer shop had been carried. on tor some years under thoman-ii af’.emcut of one John Castle, who had I, fence the passing of tho Act of 1898 been duly registered as aplianmiceutie.il chemist, v.'illimit examination, as having kept as manager in Riddiford street o|cn simp as a dispensing and lionueopatliie (diemisl. On tho 10th Juno, 1809, file plaintiff duly applied to bo registered as a. pharmaceutical chemist pur- 1 Kiiaut to subsection U of .section -I of tlio .•Pharmacy Act, 1898, and subsequently h dged uith the defendant society, in ■support of siicli application, declarations ■ proving the facts alleged in (ho Mateon ut of claim. In November, 1599, the dcfeiubuit society wrongfully and im- i pi oporJy re I tried to register tlio plair.- i (ill without assir uing a. reason I bi’rr’f'T. Thcreforo Hie pbiinlifl' claimed that fin; defendant ■- < k.- ic- ( y and (lie board thereof ho ordered hr mandamus or order of (ho Court to furl liwit h and upon payment, by the, plaintiff of (he prescribed fees, no gi.-ter tho ph-.intilf as a pharmaceutical chemist, ami without examination.

The statement of defence denied the allegations mado m tlio statement of claim, except so fur as they were admitted Ui the statement of defence. It alleged that the plaintiff for many years Lad rarned cm business in Wellington as a. herbalist only, and the notifications luado by him as to dispensing referred t.o his business as a. herbalist. Tho do fond ant society aumitted receiving plaintiffs application for registration, and replied by saying that smeli application eras duly considered by society, who, after making fijrtlicr inquiries, decided that tho plaintiff had not proved tho statements upon which ho made his application—namely, “that .since the Ist day of January, 1881, and before th# Ist day of January, 1809, ho had for not less than two years kept, as owner, open shop as a dispensing and homeopathic chemist.” The defendant society denied that the plaintiff over kept open shop ns a dispensing and homoeopathic chemist, and said that he was never possessed of the knowledge sufficient to do so. -Mr Skcrrott appeared for the plaintiff, ami Mr Hislop for the defendant society. Mr Slcemitt .submitted that tho society’.') hoard had acted in an unjust manner in refusing to grant plaintiff’s application. Tho board had refused the application without any grounds whatever,’as the proof was incontestable that the plaintiff had carried on tho business of a homeopathic and dispensing chemist.

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

By Mr Hislop: Tho goods purchased by tho plaintiff were those usually sold to chemists and. druggists for compounding proscriptions. Herbert Hentcn, in charge of the drug department of Messrs P. llaymau and Co., deposed that tho plaintiff carried on tho ordinary business of a chemist, and purchased from tho firm tiro stock- usually sold by chemists and druggists. iiy Mr Hislop ; Of his own knowledge ho could not say whether tho plaintiff had personally dispensed proscriptions. Could nob say that he bought all tho chemicals usually bought’ by registered

druggists. Miss I.ark, assistant to tho plaintiff, deposed that tho latter bad kept thp shop for six years, and carried on dispensing.

John Castle, a chemist, said ho had had three years’ and a half experience of tho business in Loudon, and ten years’ •with plaintiff. Passed tho pharmaceutical ( lamination in 1893., The Rkldiford street shop, up to 1897, was an herbalist's shop. Occasionally a medical prescription was made up from 1894 to IS!‘7—about once a month. Sold poisons occasionally. While in the Cuba, street shop ho might have made up a. few medical prescriptions. He purchased tho plaintiff’s Newtown business and had carried it on as a. chemist’s shop since 1897. By Mr Hislop: Never know plaintiff to dispense a medical proscription. A vies had not tho class of stock to dispr i so medical proscriptions, and when such came in they were scut to a chemist to dispense, or they wore not accented. There were no homoeopathic prescriptions dispensed in either shop. The slock was not sufficiently varied to| enable lie.uioopathic or medical prescrip-j lions to be made up. After witness] passed his examination there was a card placed in tho window of the shop, on which was written, ‘‘Prescriptions carefully made up.” Hid not think tho number of prescriptions that came in was more than two a month.

Tv. Ayres, Urn plaintiff, said he Inulj lui-n 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 Xcwtnwn shop ni 1888. and stocked it with an ordinary chemist’s stock. Mias quite competent ho make up an ordinary prescription. Superintended the conduct of both the Cuba street, and Newtown businesses up till 1897. Kept stocks of homccopathic medicines. Had not confined his business to botanic medicines, Imt bad frequently dispensed otner modiCl, By*Mr Hislop: Was n. painter by trade j at Horae, but had studied chemistry also Hid not understand the proscription (produced) or tho symbols used to denote measurements. ’i’Lo plaintiff was examined as to bis, ability to make up certain prescriptions] handed to him by counsel. Ho stated; that ho could not understand some of, them, and that if he had received them.

ho would havo sent them to a chemist to ho dispensed. Tho plaintiff and Mr Skerrctt objected to this line of examination, but uis Honor said the reading by the witness of the prescriptions was important as hearing on the question of whether tho witness had dispensed prescriptions or not. If the witness could not road the, proscriptions and the ease wont, to the Appeal Court lu; would report the fact to tho other Judges. In the course of further examination, witness raid he never professed to be a pharmaceutical chemist. It was on account a -ns assistant Castle having qualified as :: ..heniist that witness advertised "proscriptions made up.” This concluded the case for tiic plaintiff.

.Mr Hislop, for the defence, said that under the JBth section of tho .ret, it was a, condition precedent to granting tho plaintiffs application that the latter must submit the grounds of his application. The hoard, he urged, had to perform judicial a-s well as administrative functions, and in the exercise of tho foimc.r it was justified, in tho absence of evidence as to qualification, ir. refusing to register tho 1 plaintiff as a pharmaceutical chemist. lie called

G. W. Wilton, registrar of the Rh.irmaceutical Society, who saiil the plaintiff could not read the fiord line of one of the prescriptions submitted, winch any person competent to dispense perscru;tions ought to liavo been able to >lo. There were also two lines in tho second prescription which tho plaintiff could not read. Tho prescriptions referred (o had been taken at random from witness s proscription file. One of the prescriptions, witness said, submitted to the plaintiff, and which the latter could not. explain, contained two ingradiir.ks v Inch neutralised each other, and tha. was the reason why tho plaintiff did not understand the prescription. G. Alee, chemist, gave evidence vs to the definition of honueopalhic medicine, am! as to the ease with which any_ qualified chemist could read a prescriptico. Was under Hie impression that L.m plaintiff was carrying on a chemist’s business ii.der the cloak of a botanic dispensary. Ills Honor reserved judgment.