20 
THE AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACY. 
the appellant’s attorney they were induced weakly to change their mind, and, yielding to his 
pertinacity, altered the case. It was the duty of the appellant’s attorney, when the case was sent 
to him, either to return it to the justices at once for amendment, or else within fourteen days after 
he received it transmit it to this Court. Here he did nothing till long after the fourteen days had 
elapsed, and when he sent the case to the Court it was too late. The Court had no jurisdiction to 
deal with the matter, and the case must be struck out. 
Mr. Justice Williams said that he wished to guard himself against admitting that M‘Callum v. 
M‘Vean was rightly decided. He would not go so far as to say that it was wrongly decided. There 
were circumstances here which suggested that it was very desirable that when the justices had 
attached their signatures to a case it should be considered final, and any application to amend it 
should be made to the Court, which would prevent any undesirable proceedings being taken behind 
the back of either party. At least, if he desired any amendment from the justices, the application 
should be made to have it done within the time limited for the transmission of the case after it 
was received by the appellant. To hold otherwise would be to enable him to take advantage of his 
own laches, and to prolong the time for transmitting the case. He thought if there was any 
power in the justices to alter the case after it had been settled and signed, the alteration should be 
made within the time mentioned in the section. 
Mr. Justice Holroyd was also of opinion that the fourteen days allowed to the appellant for 
transmitting the appeal could not be extended by the appellant after that time had elapsed, by 
suggesting to the magistrate that he should make an alteration in the case. 
Motion to strike out the case granted with costs. 
Harry William Shepperson, who some time ago was committed for trial by the City Bench on 
a charge of having stolen letters from the Melbourne Post-office, addressed to Mr. Wm. Shepperson, 
the representative in Australia of Messrs. Borroughs, Wellcome and Co., manufacturing druggists, 
of England, has, since his incarceration, shown signs of insanity. He was sent with other prisoners 
for trial to the Supreme Court, but the sheriff sent him back on the ground that he was not fit to be 
tried, and advised the governor of the gaol to call two doctors to examine him. Drs. Neild and 
Wilmott accordingly visited the gaol, and found Shepperson thoroughly insane, and he will therefore 
be sent to an asylum. 
THE PHARMACY BOARD AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES’ DISPENSARIES. 
Considerable correspondence has taken place in the Ballarat papers on this subject, from which 
we reprint the following letters : — 
To the Editor of the Courier . 
Sir, — Notwithstanding the nom de plume of “ One Who Knows,” he is only half informed, or he 
would not have written the statements which his letter in your yesterday’s issue contains. He 
agrees with your paragraph re the status of apprentices already registered, but thinks “ there should 
be no more of those apprentices,” because there is no inducement held out to the managing 
dispensers to teach the craft. Well, I agree with him that there should be; but, surely, that is a 
matter for the apprentices, or their parents, and the dispensers to settle. If they are not taught 
properly they cannot pass the necessary examinations, and, as a matter of course, cannot become 
registered pharmacists. If they can pass those examinations, it follows that they have been projierly 
taught, and should be allowed the same privileges as those who have been taught in private shop. 
The thing lies in a nutshell. The dispensary committee say to the board, make your examinations 
as stiff as you like, let them cover as much ground as you like, omit no test which a competent 
druggist should not be prepared to submit to, and then leave the field open for all who have served 
the necessary term, and can pass those examinations. The dispensaries ask for no favours. They 
want fair play and nothing more. With resjiect to the financial condition of the Ballarat Dispen- 
sary, if “ One Who Knows” was as well acquainted as he thinks lie is, he would know that the 
dispensary has to its credit as much money as will pay all its liabilities. He would also know that 
the Lodges would respond to the necessary levies for the purpose stated ; and he would also know 
that the enormous profits of the business would more than justify the course suggested. If, as I 
suspect, the writer is in the same business himself, and that he fears the opening a shop in the 
East will injure his own trade, he may rest assured that, unless the law is altered as suggested, he 
will have a rival establishment opened in Bridge-street, and within a few yards of his own shop. If 
the bombast he speaks of was intended to frighten the Pharmacy Board, it would appear to have 
hit the mark, so far, at least, as one of the constituents of that august body is concerned. — Yours, etc., 
ONE WHO KNOWS BETTER, 
To the Editor of the Courier. 
Sir, — It may at this juncture be not uninteresting to “ One Who Knows,” and others interested in 
this question, to be told that the Pharmacy Board in carrying out the Act has nothing at all to do 
with, and could not recognise (even if they would), dispensary apprentices. Their duty is to see that 
all who would be registered have, in the first place, passed the preliminary examination, and, in the 
second, are articled only to registered pharmacists. Registration then follows as a right, and the 
