SHAW'S SHOPS.

NZ Truth, Issue 274, 1 October 1910, Page 7

SHAW'S SHOPS.

CHARGE AGAINST A CHEMIST. Pharmacy Under Police Surveillance. What the Detectives Declare— Mr \ Neilson or Mr Aplin? — What the i Section Provides— A Case of Importance to "Pills'* — Lawyer J Fitzgibboit's Legal Objection—S.M. Takes Time to Think— The Case Adjourned. |

Mr W. G-. Riddell, S.M., m the Wellington Magistrate's Court, was engaged on Wednesday last m hearing a charge against Frank Shaw, . pharmaceutical chemist, carrying on business m Wellington, for a breach of secfr.jn 40 of the Pharmacy Act, 1908, which enacts that "Every reg* istered chemist commits an offence who keeps or permits to be kept under his name any open shop or place of business for the compounding or dispensing of prescriptions, save under his own immediate supervisionand control or that of his duly enrolled manager." Section 41 states, "Every person who commits any of the offences referred to . . .is liable to a fine not exceeding £2 for- 1 every day on Which such Offence is committed." • The case is interesting because this prosecution, instituted! by the Pharmacy Board of New Zealand, a statutory body elected by chemists all over the Dominion, is the first of its kind m New Zealand, and is, therefore, of great interest m view ot the importance of the issue involved.

| Mr C. W. Neilson appeared for the Pharmacy Board, and Mr E. J. Fitzfcibbon for the defendant, who has his -head shop >m Manners-street, and i branch shops' m: Tory-street and- at the Hotel Cecil Buildings m Lamb^ ton-quay, Wellington. Detective Lewis deposed to defendant being a chemist carrying on business at a shop m Lambton-quay, which shop he visited on July 29 for the purpose of having a prescription (produced) . made up. He handed the prescription to Mr Neilson, who asked the del?eetive when he wanted it, and he said he wanted it immediately. Mr Neilson went behind the counter, and the detective HEARD A CLINKING- OF, GLASSES. Mr Neilson came back m a few minutes andi aslced the detective if he was "Mr Goodsell," and the detective answered "Yes." The medicine was then made up, bottled, labelled, and given, to the detective. (Bottle produced.) The detective paid the sum of 2s 6d for the medicine. No one else was m the shop all the time, except a child who came m for a small purchase- This occurred albiout 4 p.m. on July 29. The detective subsequently visited the shop on Augusts and "asked for another bottle of the same mixture, giving the name of Goodsell. He again saw Mr Neilson, . who said, "You have got through the stuff very quickly." To which the detective replied that he had not got through it, but he wanted some motfe to go on with. Fie was given another bottle (produced), together with a brush, for which he paid Is Gd. No one else was m the shop at the time. This, occurred at 12.20 p,m. ; he had seen defendant Shaw m Boulcott-street at 11.55 a.m., and said that .he could not have got to the Lambton-quay shop by the time. that he (witness) got there. To Mr Pitzgi'blbon i He had not asked for Mr Shaw' or Miss -Gregory on either occasion. He saw only Mr Neilson. (He pointed out a gentleman m court as Mr Neilson. This gentleman, Mr Fitz-gibbon said, was Mr Aphn, not Mr Neilson.) The detective said the gentleman "had always been known to him as Mr Neilson,

Detective Andrews deposed that he was at the LamWton-quay shop at 12.17 p.m. oh AttgUst 4, On which date he obtained a bottle of medicine (produced) made up according to a prescription,, and he obtained a second bottle (also produced) on August 16. On each occasion the sum of 2s 6d was charged. The prescription was returned duly stamped (produced). On the second Occasion the mixture was

DISPENSED BY A SMALL MAN. (This mail was m court, and gave his name as O'Reilly.) The only other person present was Mr Neilson (or Apliii).

Detective Mason visited the Lamb-ton-quay shop on August 29," on which date he kept it .-under bbser\*a-. tion from 2.30 to 5 p.m. Mr Neiison (or AjJlih') was m the -shop. At 4.30 p.m. Mr Shaw Visited the shop, and soon afterwards went away again. He kept the shop under observation from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m., when Mr Neiison came out alone and closed the shop. Next day he observed the shop again from 2.30 to 3,40 p.m., at which time Miss Gregory Went into the shop, and Mr Neiison came out. /On the followiihg day, August 31, he had the shop under observation from" 10.30 a.m. to 1.15 p.m., when Mr O'Reilly came out aione and [closed the shop. Mr Shaw did not put m an appearance between the hours he had i<t under observation on August 30 and 31. Similar evidence was given respecting September" 1 1. Mr Neiison put m. the register' of pharmeceutic&i chemists, a ? certificate of enrolment of Miss Alice Jane Gregory as manager for the defendant and the register of legally qu.alifi.ed' medical practitioners. - ': > This closed the case for the informant. Mr Fit/gibbon submitted that the information Was informal, being laid by the Pharmacy Board, and not by a duly authorised official, a corporate body not being legally capable of being a common informant, and that, therefore, the information should be dismissed. His Worship reserved his decision upon this point until Monday morning, until which date the case was adjourned.