MEDICATED WINES.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18998, 20 October 1923, Page 2

MEDICATED WINES.

OVER 10 PER CENT. ALCOHOL. CHARGE AGAINST UNREGISTERED CHEMIST. The Police Court was occupied in Ihe latter part of the morning yesterday m hearing a charge against William Michael Wilkinson, who was charged with selling medicated w ine containing more than _lO per cent, of, proof spirit without being licensed to do so.—Mr W. G. Hay appear eel for the defendant, and Chief-detective l ewis represented the police.—Counsel for the defence w-aa prepared to admit that tho wine contained more than TO per cent, of proof spirit, and therefore it would not he necessary for tho police to call ,n an analyst. Detective Rovcrolt said that at 11 a.in. on September 24 he called at. the shop of (lie defendant in the Arcade and purchased a small bottle of Hall’s wine a 5s 6d. Shortly after he look the bottle to Dr Hicks, public analyst, and he received a statement on Ihe result about two days later. On October 9. in company with the ejiicf-detcc-live. 1m visited the shop and searched for all liquor containing over 10 ner cent, of proof spirit. As a result a large number of bottles containing beet and iron wine, Wincarnis. and Hall’s wine, were secured. These were produced in court.

'!'<■> Mr Hav: Fie did not ask for “a tonic for In’s wife.” Tie might have said something about a tonic. ( hief-deteefive Lewis said that October 9. accompanied by Detective Roycrofi. he visited defendant’s shop in (he Meade. Tt bore every appearance of a chemist’s shop. Defendant was informed that the shop was to be searched for any wine containing over 10 per cent, of alcohol. Defendant bad admitted that ne was not a registered chemist and that he hid no license lo sell liquor. He stated furlhw lb ;r whatever he. bad in tlie shoo was for open sa'e. He was not n. “slvgrnc seller" in 'lie sense of the word. He assisted tlie police by pointing out the va>Tc.u« wines be bad in stock. Mr Hav said (bat the defendant did not in iiiiv way break (be Pharmacy Act. Ho carried on a chemist's business, nut did not style himself a “chemist.” nor did 1m make un prescript ion*. Defendant did not obstruct the police in any w-ay, but was imiio candid over the matter. He considered ho was quite right in doing what lie did Hall's wnc was not a pronor intoxicant. in Ibnt il contained a substance "liieh caused vomiting when taken to oxcens. tins acting as ils own antidote. The defendant said that ho had carried on business in ‘lm An'-ado for about three veal'?. His window boro tho -inscription, “The Empire C' l rnical Company.’’ and his business was identical wi f b that of a chemist, except as regarding filing and compounding doctors' prescriptions. Ho made up preparations of his own. On September 24 Detective Royeroff entered the shop and asked for a bottle of Hall’s wine as a tonic for bis wife. Defendant banded the bottle to his assistant Price, and asked him to wrap it tin. When asked what, percentage o f alcohol it contained defendant, referred the detective to the label. He knew the customer was a member of tho police force. To Mr ITav : Tt was not the sort of stuff a man would take to cheer himself up. Defendant had a license to sell poisons. To the Chief-detective: He mndei a strong distinction between a “chemist" and n “registered chemist.” He would not cal the unregistered man a “quack.” He knew that the wine had, by law, to bo sold for medicinal purposes, but. ho did not know that he was breaking the law r selling it. David Cooper, timber merchant, said he was in the shop at the time when Detective Royeroft entered. The detective asked for a bottle of Hall’s wine, and witness asked what it was for. The detective replied that it was a tonic for hi? wife. ■Tames Watson Price, assistant lo the defendant, said that Detective Royeroft had asked for a tonic for his wife. Witness wrapped (he bottle up for him. At this stage some technical points were raised as to what constituted a chemist, the licensing law being emoted also. Hie magistrate reserved his decision.