BREACHES OF THE OPIUM ACT

Otago Witness, Issue 3542, 31 January 1922, Page 45

BREACHES OF THE OPIUM ACT

TEN CHARGES AGAINST A CHEMIST. FINES INFLICTED IN THREE CASES. I . At the City Police Court on the 23rd Henry Louis Gallien, a chemist, of NorthEast Valley, was charged with 10 offences against the Opium Act, two relating to the sale of opium, and two regarding inadequate entries regarding sales. Mr 11. R. Spence (Collector of Customs) appeared to prosecute, and Air J. R. Lemon, jun., represented the defendant. Mr Lemon stated that defendant would plead guilty to three of the charges. Air Spence, in view of this fact, asked permission to withdraw the other seven charges, to which the magistrate consented. The charges admitted were:—(l) That, on April 24. he sold to Marcus Little opium in a quantity larger in the aggregate than one fluid ounce in liquid form, not containing more dry extractive matter than 6 per cent, when evaporated; (2) that, on June 8, he sold to Alarcus Little an over quantity of opium; and (3) that, on April 24, he failed to make in his retailers’ opium book an entry of opium disposed of by him. In outlining the case Mr Spence stated that the Opium Act and regulations were framed with a view of restricting the sale of opium for smoking, and it was provided that solutions of opium, such as tinctures, etc., came within that designation, as the liquid could be evaporated, leaving a residue suitable for smoking. Under the Treaty of Peace, wherein the League of Nations came to life, therg was a prevision aiming at the control of the drug habit throughout the world, and accordingly New Zealand had lately tightened up her regulations governing the dealing in opium and its derivatives. In this case the defendant was- charged with . selling above the legal weekly quantity of one ounce tincture, and on five different occasions during the past six months this had occurred. Further, many of the entries in his retailers’ opium book were regarded .with .grave suspicion, there being large quantities of tincture of opium written off his stock as manufactured into medicines which he failed to satisfactorily account for. One case was “Nervekill,” which, on Mr Gallien’s formula, shout*! in the sixmonths have turned out 1470 bottles, of which quantity he accounted for as sold only 168 bottles, whilst Isis stock in October last was only 18 bottles. His book showed large quantities of other lines as produced, but few of these could be accounted for satisfactorily. For comparison, he (A'lr Spence) had had figures taken out for the last three months of 1920 and 1921 respectively. and found that the book showed that 632 ounces were used in that period of 1920, whilst only 16 ounces were used in 1921. The inspector’s visit .was in October last, and his other visits had been intermittent, so that evidently the defendant had pursued quite a different course lately to what he did previous to the department pressing him. During the past year or two nis consumption of tincture of opium had been about 1460 ounces every six months — quite a remarkable quantity for a business of proportions such as his, a rut- from 10 to 2-9 times ihe quantity sold and used individually by other large retail chemists in this district. The department naturally regarded these. breaches of the Act as serious. Generally speaking, it was very difficult to obtain the necessary evidence in ihese cases to secure conviction, so a ease such as this was brought not only to stop illegal practices on the part of the person charged, but lo act as a warning to others should they be tempted to break the regulations. The stock of opium held by Ihe defendant was forfeited under authority of regulation No. 21. In view of all the circumstances the department could not regard these breaches as merely of a technical nature, and consequently, in respect- of the three charges, he was instructed to ask for the maximum penalty. Mr Lemon stated that the mistakes were purely inadvertent, and not. intentional. The books were examined every six months, and as the defendant knew this, it would be absurd to think that he would intentionally endeavour to mislead the department’s officers. Since the books had been regularly inspected he had not used so much of the drug in his preparations, having substituted ether for it in the cattle drenches and tincture of red gum in “Nervekill.” ! Air Spence said the officer had informed defendant that lie was not satisfied with his statement. He was given every opI portunity to explain the use of so much 1 opium and the failure to enter in his sales book transactions that had taken place, but he had not furnished the name of any customer. If he had made such a large j number of drenches, some of them should ! have been in stock when the officer called, I but none was found. The Magistrate said he was not satisfied | with Mr Lemon’s explanation. In view of j the fact that seven oases had been withj drawn, he would inflict the maximum I penalty (£10) in each of the cases pro- ! ceeded with, and 7s costs in each of the 10 cases.