THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL O* PHARMACY. 
455 
case might be met by the issue of two certificates — one of attendance, and the 
other of proficency. The Faculty of Medicine were prepared to recommend 
that this arrangement should come into operation from the 1st January next, 
and that it would practically fulfil all the deputation asked for. 
The interview then terminated. 
SHILLIN GLAW V. THE EQUITABLE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, 
LIMITED. 
(Before the Full Court — Justices Williams, Holroyd and Kerferd— on 7th Dec.) 
(Specially reported for The Australasian Journal of Pharmacy.) 
This was an appeal from a decision of the District Police Court, Melbourne, on 
9th September, the following special case having been stated by the justices 
for the opinion of the Full Court : — 
The information in this case alleged that the Equitable Co-operative Society, 
Limited, being a society duly registered in pursuance of the provisions of “The 
Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1873,’* and not being a registered phar- 
maceutical chemist, did carry on business as a chemist and druggist contrary 
to the statute in that case provided. The justices at Melbourne dismissed the 
information. The facts stated were as follow : — It was proved that the 
informant, H. W. Shillinglaw, was the duly authorised registrar of the Pharmacy 
Board, and was authorised to prosecute in this case. Shillinglaw wrote to the 
defendant society and drew attention to sect. 10 of the Amended Pharmacy 
Act, No. 858. The defendant wrote to the registrar stating that the defendant’s 
dispenser, James Crosbie Goold, was registered in the Pharmaceutical Register. 
Goold’s residence was registered as being at No. 91 Cecil-street, at South Mel- 
bourne. The registrar afterwards recorded Goold’s residence as 89 Collins-street 
east, at Melbourne, which address was also the defendant’s place of business. 
It was further proved that one James Scott took a medical prescription to the 
store of the Equitable Co-operative Society, Limited, at the above address, and 
that at the medicine department he had the prescription dispensed by Goold. The 
bottle containing the medicine bore a label to the following effect : — “ Dispensed 
at the Equitable Co-operative Pharmacy, 89 Collins-street, by J. C. Goold, pharma- 
ceutical chemist.” 
Dr. Madden and Mr. Isaacs, instructed by Messrs. Emerson and Barrow, 
for the complainant appellant. — The defendant has been prosecuted, under the 
Pharmacy Act 1876, for carrying on the business of a chemist without being 
registered. Section 25, subsection (1) of that Act provides that “Any person not 
being a registered pharmaceutical chemist who carries on or attempts to carry on 
business as a chemist and druggist or homoeopathic chemist or either ” shall be 
subject to a penalty not exceeding £10. The Pharmacy Act 1885, No. 858 > 
sec. 10, provides that “the word ‘person’ wherever the same occurs in Part 
IV. of the Principal Act shall be deemed to include any corporation whether 
established by charter or otherwise and any company or society registered duly 
in pursuance of the provisions of any Act of Parliament.” Therefore it must be 
conceded that the word “ person ” in section 25 of the Principal Act includes a 
society like the defendant society. The question then is, whether this defendant 
carried on the business of a chemist or druggist. It is submitted that the 
defendant, beyond all doubt, did carry on such business under the superintendence 
of Goold. The statute distinctly provides that all persons carrying on this 
business must be registered. No corporation or society can register itself as a 
chemist, and therefore the object and definite intention of the Legislature was to 
