April, 1882. 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. 
91 
DEPUTATION TO THE MINISTER OF LANDS. 
A deputation from the Pharmaceutical Society of Victoria, 
consisting of Messrs. Bowen, Keogh, Huntsman, Atkin, 
Jones, Baker, Thomas, Swift, Gamble, George, Hooper, Ross, 
Best, Nicholls, Shillinglaw, and Messrs. Zox, Blackett, Oook, 
Macgregor, and Laurens, M.L.A.’s, waited on the Minister of 
Lands on the 22nd March. The deputation was introduced 
by Mr. Zox, M.L.A., who shortly placed before the Minister 
the desire of the society, and said that he felt sure that Mr . 
Madden would accede to the request of the deputation after 
he had heard what they had to say. Mr. C. R. Blackett 
endorsed what Mr. Zox had said. He also desired to point 
out that in other countries not only was land granted, 
but every facility given to foster scientific education. 
Some time since an application was made to the Govern- 
ment on a similar subject, and the deputation were informed 
that if a suitable site could be obtained the Minister would 
grant the application. A suitable place had been found, and 
they were there to-day to ask that the promise might be 
fulfilled. 
Mr. Wm. Bowen, the president of the society, said that they 
had previously received a promise of a portion of the site on 
the Eastern Hill adjoining the hospital for sick children, but 
they had not obtained that. An unnecessary valuable site was 
not desirable, provided it was central, and as the County Court 
was about to be sold, the society would suggest that that site 
be granted, and that they be allowed to take the building at 
a valuation. Mr. Bowen dwelt at some length on the 
necessity that existed for a properly organised school of 
pharmacy. The law obliged all persons to undergo a certain 
course of study, and there were at the present moment about 
two hundred apprentices who must attend the school, and this 
number would be annually augmented by from forty to fifty 
new apprentices. There was no instruction in pharmacy at the 
Melbourne University. 
Mr. Macgregor, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Laurens, M.L.A.’s, all sup- 
ported the application. 
Mr. Edmd. Keogh reminded the Minister that this was the 
only application of the sort likely to be made to the Govern- 
ment. It was necessary that persons desirous of becoming 
chemists should pass certain examinations, and they had to 
come from all parts of the colony to Melbourne to do so. 
Parliament having passed such a law, might fairly be asked 
in the interest of the public to supply a place for them to 
study in. 
The Minister said that when he granted a site to the 
Medical Society of Victoria he thought he was dealing with all 
branches of the profession. 
Mr. Bowen thought that such a combination would not be 
likely to work well. 
Mr. Madden suggested that a portion of the Exhibition 
buildings might, with the consent of the trustees, be utilised. 
Mr. Blackett said that the objection to this was that they 
could only have permissive occupancy. J 
After some further discussion the Minister agreed to grant 
the society a piece of land— sixty-six feet frontage— near the 
proposed Women’s Lodginghouse, which, he considered, would 
have the additional advantage of having a frontage to Bo wen- 
street. ° 
The deputation thanked the Minister, and withdrew. 
WARRNAMBOOL POLICE COURT. 
Tuesday, 28 th March. 
Before Messrs. L. Ogilby (chairman), J. A. Bromfield, and 
E. Elliget. 
Sergeant Hamilton proceeded against W. F. G. Nettleton 
for carrying on business as a chemist at Liebig-street Warr- 
n am bool, without being registered under the Pharmacy Act 
1876. Mr. D. Wilkie appeared on behalf of the board, Mr’ 
Higgins appearing for the prisoner. 
Mr. Wilkie said the defendant was charged under section 
26, sub-section 2 of the Pharmacy Act, with exhibiting the 
name or title of a chemist whilst not being a registered 
pharmaceutical chemist, as required by the Act. Section 16 
of the same Act provided that the board, in the month of 
January of each year shall cause to be printed, published, 
and sold a correct register of the names of all the regis- 
tered pharmaceutical chemists, and section 17 provided that 
such register should be accepted as prima facie evidence in 
all courts of justice. It would be proved that the defendant 
did exhibit the title of chemist over the premises in which 
he was carrying on the business of a chemist, and a copy 
of the register (produced) would show that his name was 
not upon it. 
Mr. Higgins required to know if this was a private or a 
public prosecution. 
Mr. Wilkie said the summons was served by the police. 
Mr. Higgins thought that, under the circumstances, the 
police would take action in the usual way. 
Mr. Wilkie said it was the customary practice for the police 
to lay the information in such cases. 
Mr. Higgins — Yes, and conduct the proceedings also. 
Mr. Wilkie did not think that was usual where a solicitor 
was employed for the prosecuting parties. 
Sergeant Hamilton stated that he knew the shop of the 
defendant in Liebig-street. It had been carried on for some 
time as a chemist’s shop, and the name “ Nettleton, chemist,” 
was exhibited over the door. In reply to Mr. Higgins, witness 
stated that he was prosecuting under instructions from the 
Pharmacy Board. He had seen defendant’s name on the 
board’s register of some years ago. Witness had never made a 
complaint to the defendant that he was acting illegally. 
Harry Shillinglaw, registrar to the Pharmacy Board of Vic- 
toria, produced the register of the board on which defendant’s 
name did not appear. The defendant’s name had not ap- 
peared in the register since the year 1878. 
Mr. Wilkie pointed out that section 26 showed the defendant 
to be liable to a penalty not exceeding £10, and imprisonment 
for six months. 
Mr. Higgins asked if the case was closed, and being in- 
formed that it was, he submitted that it must be dismissed. 
The very section last quoted by the solicitor for the prosecu- 
tion was fatal to it. The 25th section held that from and 
after six months after the date of the first appointment of the 
board any person committing any of the offences enumerated 
shall be liable to the punishment laid down. In this case 
there was not a particle of evidence to show that a board had 
been appointed. At the outset the existence of the board 
should have been established. That was the very groundwork 
of the action. 
The chairman did not see the objection. 
Mr. Higgins submitted that it was as plain as a pikestaff. 
The chairman was perfectly aware of the existence of the 
board. 
Mr. Higgins said that was not evidence. There was the 
proper procedure of the court to be observed. It should have 
been shown in evidence by the production of the Government 
Gazette that the board was duly appointed. 
Mr. Wilkie would put in the Gazette notice now if the bench 
would allow it. ( Gazette handed up.) 
Mr. Higgins submitted that the case for the prosecution 
was closed, and could not be reopened in this manner. 
The chairman said he and his colleagues were just as well 
satisfied that there was a Pharmacy Board as they were of 
there being a House of Parliament. 
Mr. Higgins persisted that the case had been closed for the 
prosecution, and, while it was highly necessary to prove that 
a Pharmacy Board existed, it had not been so proved. 
The chairman did not think it was necessary to prove a fact 
so well known. 
Mr. Higgins said there was another point. His client’s 
name was on the register for 1878, and he had received no inti- 
mation of its being taken off, nor was he aware that it had been 
taken off. 
The chairman said they were not there to inquire into that. 
How could section 17 be got over ? 
Mr. Higgins wanted to know how section 25 could be got 
over by the bench. ° 
The chairman said the bench had settled that matter. 
Mr. Higgins remarked that his client acted in entire igno- 
rance of the law. His name was certainly not on the register 
but he was not cognisant of its being off. Why had he not 
been interfered with before this? The most that he could be 
guilty of would be the sin of omission, not commission. He 
had simply neglected to see if his name was on the register or 
not, and he had received no intimation of its removal from the 
register. It was not necessary to register every year. It was 
only in certain cases, such as changing his address, that a 
member was required to communicate with the board on the 
subject of registry. Had he known that he was not on the 
register, he would have taken steps to have his name restored 
to it before. Perhaps the bench would inflict a nominal fine 
only, and allow defendant the opportunity of getting rein- 
stated on the register as early as possible. 
