“OBSOLETE & ABSURD”

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11251, 1 July 1922, Page 16

“OBSOLETE & ABSURD”

LAW ANO SALE OF POISONS “PUBLIC NOT .11! ',I NO PROTECTED, BUT POOLED.” A DOUBLE PROSECUTION. A il.u-.’oL- prosecution was made by Sir E. K. Hum, S.AI., yesterday in a case iu wiiieh a chemist and his assistant were charged with breach* s of the regulations relating to the sale of poisons". Robert Johnston, chemist, of ISI, Cuba street, was chained under the Poisons Aet of iydß with having Bold a poLon to a person unknown to him, and with having failed to note the date of the sale and the name and address or the purchaser. Tlis assistant, Erie Hooper Bus. was _ charged conjointly that he sold the poison, ami that he was not n-g‘stored under the Ant. Sub-1 inspector McNamara conducted the prosecution, arid Mr 0 O. Mazengarb appeared for t’.io defendants. CASE FOR PROSECUTION. Outlining tho case for tlio police, the sub-inspector alleged that on March Pth, Hiss sold a bottle of lysoi to a women who subsequently went to a hotel and poisoned herself. Ho did not ask her to make an entry, nor to product.' proofs that, she was a fit and proper person to purchase tho poison. Section Id, under which the charge v,-as laid had really been adopted from the English Pharmacy Act, section 15, which required that a. teller nf poison must bo registered; an assistant could not sell for his master. Only three weeks ago another suieido by similar means had been committed. Carbolic acid had been a poison within tho meaning of tho Act since 1912. Practically all grocers in Auckland, and come’ chemists, had been prosecuted some tune ago for selling this class of poison. ‘ WORST OF ITS KIND.” Mr Mazengarb characterised the ntatute under which the action, was brought as the worst of its kind in tho British Empire. TLo law was hopelessly out of date, having been passed in ISil. Tho two amendments made in the intervening fifty years had served only to make tho law more absurd. Obviously tho Act was designed to protect tho 'public by prohibiting unregistered persons from soiling poisons, and regulating tho conditions under which registered vendors might sell. It was effective f'r neither purpose. It allowed many dangerous poisons to be sold by any shopkeeper or hawker; but. by the operation of an ingenious Order-in-Council, it unnecessarily restricted the sale by qualified and careful chemists of the most common household antiseptics. Contending that the offence was only of a trivial nature, he referred to some of the more deadly and dangerous poisons that may be sold by anyone without restriction and without asking any questions of tho purchaser. Arsenate of lead, ho said, was a very powerful poison In the form of a white powder resembling flour. It wae made up in small jars and waa freely sold by storekeepers. None of the synthetic poisons were covered by tho Act, because they wero not known fifty years ago. Furthermore, the Act expressly allowed the sale of sheep-dip and any compound used for the destruction of certain insect pests the seller of these compounds need not lx? registered, and he committed no offence even if he had a shrewd suspicion that the purchase was being made for the self-destruc-tion of the buyer. On .the other hand, continued counsel, by an Order-in-Council gazetted in 1912, the Act was made to apply to “Carbolic acid and it.s homo’ogues containing more than three per cent, of thoso substances.” It was through this amendment that the defendants were now prosecuted. There seemed to have been some doubt as to what the amendment was intended to cover and whether tho sale of ‘.‘lysoi” was affected thereby. The Health Department had been approached by the Pharmaceutical Association, and had admit ted that the Order-in-Council went too far. and would not be allowed to affect the sale of such a valuable disinfectant in general use. From that date “lysoi” under its various trade names had been, and was still, freely sold by storekeepers without regard to the Order-in-Council. The vendor in the present case, who was a registered chemist and a registered vendor of poisons, relied on the undertaking given by the Health Department in 1914, as reported in the issue of the “Chemist and Druggist” for July of that year. "While carrying out the provisions of tho Act in regard to other poisons and exercising a sensible discrimination as to the persons coming to buy any poisoipus preparation, ho had not thought it necessary to burden himself with a restriction which tho Health Department considered unnecessary, and which was not enforced oven against the general shopkeeper. Tho magistrate said ho did not see what tho Health Department had to do with it. Mr Mazengarb contended that it was absurd to inform registered vendors that a regulation would not be enforced and then prosecute merely be cause one sale had resulted in a casualty, especially when irresponsibles and persons without any technical knowledge of the article sold were allowed to sell this and more dangerous poisons. After the summonses had boon issued tho Health Department had been communicated with and reminded of its promise. Tile answer was that it was too late to stop the prosecution now, but that probably no further cases would bo brought. It was highly desirable that the attention of Parliament and tho public should be sharply drawn to the effectiveness of a statute which permitted the groat danger it was designed to avoid. The assistant had been with Johnston for six years. Tho action of tho Health Dcpaitmcnt was nothing short of absurd. The magistrate: That doesn't make any difference; there’s an Act of Parliament. Mr Mazengarb: Not an Act—a Gazette notice. Tho question was never debated in the House. rNTIE^TRrCITED SALES OF DEADLY I’OLSONS. Counsel said that neither Johnston nor his assistant had any reason to suppose, that. tho lady purchaser wanted thi article for an unlawful purpose; and when tho police called tho following day tho defendants had no hesitation in giving tho information on which tho [>rescnt proceeding** are founded. To restrict the eale of a common antiseptic while allowing unrestricted sales of deadlier poisons wan to “strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” in order to rectify such an anomaly a bill wa- - prepared by the Pharmacy Board last year and printed copies submitted to the General Government. The farming community, Lowovor, fancied that the intention van to interfere with their

purchase of sheep-dip and other disinfectants. As a result, nothing was done by the Government, and tho statute law 6tiil remained obsolete and absurd. The entry of a conviction would only mislead tho public into bclieviug that it was being protected, when in reality it was being fooled. “I therefore respectfully suggest/* ho concluded, “that tho case*) be dismissed ao trivial and that the court represent tho reasons for its judgment *n tho proper quarter.’* Tho magistrate said he was satisfied the department did not see the provisions carried out in a fit and proper manner. “My way of protecting tho public/' ho e-aid, “is to see that tho provisions of this Act are applied. . . I won't have anything to do with tho Department of Health.** Each defendant wns fined £5 and costs.