SOCIAL HYGIENE ACT

Otago Witness, Issue 3336, 20 February 1918, Page 22

SOCIAL HYGIENE ACT

BREACH. AT OAMARU. The first prosecution under the Social Hygiene Act of 1917 took place in the Oainaru Court on Wednesday, when Harold Bell- (Mr Ongley) was charged before Mr J. R.' Bartholomew, S.M., that, not being a registered medical practitioner, he did undertake the cure of a venereal disease. Clause 7 of the Act, under which the charge was laid, reads as follows: "Every person, other than a registered medical practitioner, who. undertakes for payment or other reward the treatment or cure •of any venereal disease commits an offence, and is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to imprisonment for a .term not exceeding one 3'ear." Senior Sergeant Stagpoolo said that the defendant, who was an employee of the United Friendly Societies' Dispensary, had been approached by a man, who said he was suffering from a certain disease, and who had asked for medicine. Bell had supplied a bottle of medicine, and the man returned some time afterwards with a prescription, which Bell had made up as requested. The sufferer had again returned, and the chemist had advised him to go and see a doctor. A penalty was not pressed for, the principal object of the prosecution being to direct attention to the law bearing on the subject. Mr Ongley raised two grounds for the defence: That the accused, being an employee, did not manufacture the medicine for pavment or reward; and that he did not, by giving a man a mixture, undertake the treatment or euro of the disease Harold Douglas Bell gave evidence that, so far as he could remember, the-first time the man called, witness had charged him 5s for the bottle of medicine, and the second time 2s 6d. The money had gone into the till. " • ' . The Magistrate eaid the defendant had supplied the man with something to act as a treatment for the disease. He thought that was provid :, .]£ treatment. The question arose regarding the defendant being an employee, and having not, therefore, it was argued, undertaken the work for payment. The matter of the prescription must have been unauthorised by the employer, who was not likely to commit himself to what was a criminal -offence. Defendant would be fined £5, with court costs (7s).