10 
the Australasian journal of pharmacy. 
Vermin Destroyer. I mixed a portion of it into a paste, and placed it about the floor of the shop. 
On the morning of the 1st May my attention was called by my wife to the child, who had picked 
up some of the stuff from the floor, and was eating it. The child shortly after became convulsed. 
I ran across to Mr. Harrison, who gave the child an emetic, which made it very sick. Shortly 
after Dr. Fetherstone arrived, and prescribed for the child. On the 14tli May I handed to Mr. 
Shillinglaw, in the presence of the last witness, the packet now produced, which I sealed up and 
put my initials on. It is the unused portion of the packet purchased from Mr. Harrison. I now 
identify it as the package handed to Mr. Shillinglaw, 
Harry Shillinglaw deposed : The information in this case is laid by me. I produce the 
Pharmaceutical Register and also the Medical Register. The name of the defendant does not 
appear therein. The defendant holds no certificate from the Pharmacy Board of Victoria that he 
is a fit and proper person to sell poisons. On the 14tli May, in company with Mr. Harrison, I 
visited the shop of Mr. Jacob Tyfeld, 56 Chapel-street, Prahran, and received from him the package 
now produced, which he sealed up and initialed in my presence. I delivered this to Mr. Johnson 
for analysis. 
To Mr. Wilkie : A number of cases for breaches of this section of the Poisons Act have been 
brought before this court during the last two years. 
William Johnson, Government analyst, sworn: I received from Mr. Shillinglaw the packet 
now produced. It was sealed up at the time he handed it to me. I examined it, and found it was 
composed of flour and arsenic. About 20 per cent, of arsenic was present in the sample submitted 
to me. 
Gerald Henry Fetherstone, a legally qualified medical practitioner, deposed that he was called 
in to attend the child of Mr. Tyfeld on the morning of the 1st of May. The child exhibited all 
the symptoms of arsenic poisoning. 
This concluded the case for the prosecution. 
In addressing the Bench, Mr. Wilkie said this was one of the worst cases that had ever come 
before the court, and he was instructed to press for the full penalty imposed by the Act. The 
evidence disclosed that the defendant had knowingly sold a most dangerous and deadly poison, 
which was described on the label as being “ non -poisonous,” and the Board, in the execution of a 
Public duty, would ask the Bench to inflict such a penalty as would be a warning to persons 
guilty of such illegal practices. 
After a short consultation, the Bench inflicted a fine of £10 and £6 6s. costs. Immediate 
execution was granted. 
At the Berwick Police Court, before Mr. Frank Hare, P.M., and a bench of magistrates, 
J. C. Hodgson, a storekeeper, carrying on business at Pakenham, was charged, on the infor- 
mation of the registrar of the Pharmacy Board of Victoria, with a breach of the 3rd section 
of the “ Poisons Act.” The evidence disclosed that, on the 13th February, the defendant sold to a 
butcher named Stone two bottles of laudanum, which were administered to his wife, who died 
from the effects. The defendant, who pleaded guilty to the charge, stated that he was unaware, 
in selling the poison, that he was committing an illegal act. Mr. Shillinglaw, who conducted the 
prosecution, stated that he was instructed by the board, under all the circumstances of the 
case, not to press for a heavy penalty. The defendant was fined 10s., and £5 5s. costs. A license 
has since been granted to Mr. Hodgson. 
SHILLINGLAW v. AH HEN. 
SECOND NISI PRIUS COTJHT. 
(Before tlieir Honours Mr. Justice Higinbotham, Mr. Justice Williams, and Mr. Justice Holroyd.) 
Mr. M‘Debjiott moved that this case be struck out of the list. It was an appeal against a 
decision made by the justices at Sandhurst in a prosecution by the registrar of the Pharmacy 
Board against Ah Hon of selling opium without his having previously obtained a certificate from 
the Pharmacy Board authorising linn to do so. The justices had dismissed the charge against Ah 
Hen, and the complainant appealed. The decision of the justices was given on the 23rd October, 
1884. On the 3rd November the complainant applied to the justices to state a case, and forwarded 
to them a draft case. The justices asked the defendant to allow them to peruse the draft, which 
he did, making alterations in it, and the justices then returned it to complainant’s attorney. At 
the same time they wiote to him that if he had any alterations to suggest he should return the case 
to them. By section 150 of the Justices of the Peace Statute he was required to transmit the case 
to the Supreme Court within fourteen days after receiving it. The complainant’s attorney did 
not transmit the case to the Supreme Court, but on the 22nd December wrote to the justices, 
suggesting an amendment in the case. This the justices at first refused to do, but ultimately 
they made the alteration, and in April the appellant’s attorney transmitted the case to the Supreme 
Court. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the case had been sent to the Court too 
late, and that it ought now to be struck out. 
Mr. C. A. Smyth, who appeared for the appellant, contended that the case had not been 
finally settled till the alterations had been agreed to by the justices, and according to the decision 
of the Court in M'Callum v. M‘Vean, 3 V.R., 98, the fourteen days counted from the day on which 
the case was last received by the justices by the appellants after amendments made by them. 
Mr. Justice Higinbotham said that after a case had been drawn by the justices and settled by 
them, it was not proper that one of the parties should go behind the back of the other, and 
endeavour to. force the justices to alter it. The magistrates here had in the first instance dealt 
with the application in a proper manner, by refusing to alter the case, but by the importunity of 
