"REPEAT WHENINECESSARY."

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 12588, 19 October 1911, Page 5

" REPEAT WHENINECESSARY."

LIQUOR FROM A CHEMIST

fSpecial to Herald.)

AUCKLAND, this day. At the Waihi Court yesterday a local chemist, Raymond ..Carder, was charged with having jillegally sold intoxicating liquor to Waihi i residents, and with having unlawfitlly kept liquor for sale. 1 4 reat interest was manifested m the, ease, , which ''is the first of Ihe kind heard m the 'iDominion". Ib involves important law points regarding dispensing alcoholic liquors by chemists for medicinal purposes, and the giving pf certificaties; by doctors (relative thereto under subsection 8, section 147 of the Licensing Act:. The : Court was packed. The accused's counsel said ■ .that the position was so beset with legal difficulties that defendant was forced into pleading guilty. Defendant had supplied liquor on a telephone order by a doctor without any certificate, which he (counsel) admitted was a breach of the Act. Defendant had also* supplied liquor on "repeat when necessary" orders. The Magistrate interjected that such an order was no good, and could only act once. Counsel said defendant had received 280 bottles m three months, of which 230 could be accounted for. He submitted that there was not a single case where defendant had disposed of liquor without the authority of a medical man. Counsel asked the Magistrate to be lenient with the matter, as the case was the first m the Dominion, and was so beset with legal difficulties. Inspector Wright, m opening tlie case for; the police, saicTthat defendant obtained 238 bottles m three months. The prescriptions handed to the police only accounted for 75 bottles. With regard to weak -hearted persons' requiring liquor, as stated by counsel, Waihi doctors seemed to have been very sympathetic. (Laughter.) One of the orders read, "For medicinal use, to be repeated when necessary." (Laughter). The Inspector said that defendant had been doing very well;." having sold 238 bottles m three months, purchasing at 4s 6d a bottle and selling at 7s 6d — a profit of £15. As this was the first case rof the kind he would riot unduly press the charge. The Magistrate, m giving his decision, said it was the duty of a chemist to understand the law on the subject. Defendant had made a gross abuse of the section governing the dispensing of liquor. Repeat orders were perfectly illegal; Doctors and chemists should be aware of that. A chemist should keep liquor certificates for his own protection. He could not treat the Offence as a trivial one. A -fine of £25, jvith costs, was imposed.