456 
THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
practically prohibit all such societies from carrying on the business of a chemist 
in any manner. 
Judge Holroyd: Cannot a corporation register itself as a chemist? 
No ; the qualifications are purely personal. 
Judge Williams : Section 10 says that the word “ person” shall include a cor- 
poration under Part TV. of the Act, and that seems to infer that a corporation 
can carry on such a business. 
No; not necessarily. 
Judge Williams: You must read it thus then, “Any corporation not being 
registered as a pharmaceutical chemist cannot carry on such business.” 
Yes ; of course if a society could register itself it would be different. 
Judge Williams: Then sect. 10 is of no use at all? 
It had been held in England that the word “person” did not include a 
society like the present, and it was in view of that fact that section 10 was 
passed. There is no doubt that, whatever may be the reasons, the Legislature 
aimed directly at these very societies, and it was intended to prevent them from 
carrying on this particular business. 
Judge Kerferd : Is not this business transacted by Goold himself, who is a 
registered chemist, in a place which may or may not belong to the defendant ? 
It is like the case of a dentist who visits an hotel at certain intervals ; the dentist 
carries on his business at the hotel, and the hotelkeeper is not in any way identified 
with the business. 
No; the two cases are very distinct. The label on the medicine bottle is 
headed, “At the Equitable Co-operative Pharmacy.” 
Judge Kerferd : The Pailway Commissioners let premises to licensed persons to 
sell liquors; why should not a society let its premises to a registered chemist? 
That perhaps might be done if it were done bona fide. All the documents 
show that the department is the department of the society, and that the society 
has full control over it. Section 10 was passed in consequence of the decision in 
Pharmaceutical Society v. London and Provincial Supply Association (5 ap. ca. 
857). In that case Blackburn, L.J., at p. 872 says, with reference to the object of 
the Act : “ I myself think that probably one reason for that was to facilitate 
convictions, and another may have been that it was thought that, if there is a 
person who keeps a shop who is unqualified, he may have a qualified assistant, 
and he will be able to over-rule the qualified assistant at any moment he pleases, 
and there may be danger in that.” 
Mr. Hodges and Dr. MTnerney for the respondent defendant. — The complainant 
here has to establish that there was a case on which the justices were bound to 
convict, because the justices have found against him, and this Court would have 
to say that the only thing the justices could do was to convict the defendant. 
That practically makes this a mandamus to compel them to decide in a different 
way to that in which they have decided. The evidence did not satisfy the justices, 
and they dismissed the complaint. It is submitted that the mere fact of the 
defendant having on its premises a place at which drugs are dispensed does not 
make it a chemist. It is said in the English case cited by the appellant that 
the object of the Act was to prevent an unqualified person interfering with a 
qualified person. In this case there is nothing whatever to show that the society 
carried on this business, or that it interfered in any way with the registered 
chemist who dispensed the medicines. All that is proved is that in a certain 
portion of its premises it allows drugs to be dispensed. 
Judge Williams : The evidence shows that there is a portion of its premises at 
which it dispenses drugs through the instrumentality of Goold. 
The evidence does not necessarily bind us to that conclusion. 
