THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
289 
part of Victoria in the practice of dentistry or dental surgery, either separately 
or in conjunction with the practice of medicine, surgery, or pharmacy.” An 
impression prevailed that it would be desirable to place the administration of 
the Act in the hands of a Board composed entirely of dentists, and not — as pro- 
posed in the bill — half dentists and half medical men. These and several other 
minor details were left in the hands of Mr. Thomson, the hon. secretary of 
the Odoutological Society, and Mr. Shillinglaw, hon. secretary of the Pharma- 
ceutical Society, to discuss with Dr. Rose. 
DIMOCK v. THE PHARMACY BOARD OF VICTORIA. 
A rule nisi calling upon the Pharmacy Board of Victoria to show cause why a 
mandamus should not be issued to compel them to grant a certificate to George 
Augustus Dimock was argued before Sir William S taw ell, Chief Justice, on 
29th July. It appeared from the affidavits that Dimock had, prior to the 
coming into operation of the Pharmacy Act, served as an apprentice to his 
father, George Dimock, a medical practitioner, under a verbal agreement, for two 
years, and had also been employed as a dispensing assistant to his father from 1st 
October, 1874, to July, 1876, at a salary. In October, 1879, Dimock applied to the 
Board for a certificate, when the secretary wrote stating that it appeared that he was 
fourteen years of age when an assistant, and asking him to state how old he was 
when apprenticed. No reply was received to this letter, but on the 19th April, 
1882, Dimock wrote, stating that since November, 1879, he had been continuously 
engaged dispensing in his father’s open shop, which period, with the others, made 
a total of nearly seven years ; that he was now of age, and asking for 
a grant of the certificate. In answer to this, a letter was written on 
the 25tli April, 1882, stating that the Board had previously decided that the 
applicant was not eligible for registration, and that the time served since 
the date of the previous application did not in any way alter the 
applicant’s position. No further communication was received until 12th January, 
1886, when a letter was received from Dimock’s solicitor, submitting that he was 
entitled to registration. The Board then asked that a copy of the certificate of 
the registration of his birth be forwarded, from which it appeared that he was 
born on the 5th April, 1861. The Board refused the various applications for a 
certificate on the ground that it did not consider that a boy of his years, when 
the Pharmacy Act 1876 came into operation, could possibly have acquired suffi- 
cient knowledge and experience to render it safe to the public that he should 
be entrusted with the dispensing of prescriptions and the sale of poisons, etc. 
Mr. Box and Mr. Smith, in support of the rule nisi , quoted Section 18 of 
the Pharmacy Act, which provides that no person shall receive from the Board 
a certificate unless he is 21 years of age, and unless at any time before the 
date of the commencement of the Act he shall have carried on the business of 
a chemist, etc., for not less than two months, or unless at any time before the 
date of the commencement of the Act he shall for not less than three 
months have been employed as a dispensing assistant in an open shop for the 
compounding and dispensing of the prescriptions of legally qualified medical 
practitioners. These two clauses are the only clauses of the Act which preserve 
existing rights, and Parliament has laid down the condition under which those 
actually carrying on the business of a chemist, or being dispensing assistants, 
are to be registered as chemists. These clauses, the counsel for the applicant 
contended, leave no discretion in the Board to grant or refuse a certificate to 
any person who can bring himself within them. The applicant in this case has 
sworn that he was a dispensing assistant in an open shop for a considerable 
