VoL. ii., No. 2. 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
43 
Court. The two guineas allowed before against them had been 
paid back, but that had nothing to do with the present case. 
There had been a correspondence between the Solicitors on 
both sides, by which it was agreed that if the Store had done 
certain things specified therein the case would not have come 
into Court again. They had not done what was specified. 
They should have published an advertisement to the satisfac- 
tion of the Board. They had put in an advertisement, but it 
was not what was necessary, it merely stated that they had 
stopped dispensing. They also said that if the costs of the 
Board were furnished as between attorney and client, they 
would pay them ; there was also a disagreement about that, 
they now came into Court again and asked for satisfactory 
costs. As he said before, the case was a very difficult one, 
and had cost the Board a good deal of money ; they had 
eiigaged two Counsel. He presumed Dr. Mclnerney would 
admit the order of the Court. The document in his hand 
was a consent by the Solicitors to the evidence given on 
the last occasion, being considered on the re-hearing without 
the necessity of going into it again. It only remained with the 
Bench as to what they could find. 
Mr, Panton : It was for the Bench to determine and not 
for the Solicitors to agree as to what should be done. The 
document did not influence them in any way, it was of no 
consequence to them, the Bench settled those matters. 
Mr. Emmerson : My friend hinted at one time that he was 
going to call evidence, but I was about to say that I was not 
prepared to call evidence. 
Mr. Panton: We impose a fine of 20s., and £2 2s. costs. 
Dr. Mclnerney : Will your Worships hear me before you 
inflict a penalty. 
Mr. Panton : I thought the whole matter was settled 
between you. 
Dr. Mclnerney said it was not so. He then applied for the 
infliction of only a nominal penalty. He could produce no 
new facts, but on argument the matter might be looked at in a 
different light. It should be considered that a new point of 
law had been established, and that there was no criminality 
on the part of the defendant. A light fine only should be in- 
flicted on that account. The defendants and nearly every 
person in the community had been under the impression that 
what the defendant had done was perfectly legal. In regard to 
costs, although the Plaintiff’s attorney had stated that the 
case had cost a good deal, and that the case was intricate, yet 
the Full Court had ordered the costs to be taxed, and they had 
been paid, the only costs the Plaintiff would be entitled to 
were the costs of that day’s attendance. 
Dr. Emmerson: They have not been paid. We can only 
get £20. 
Mr. Mclnerney: The section of the Justices of the Peace 
Statute said that the costs were not to exceed £20 and they 
they had the full limit. If they did not think they had enough 
they must get the Statute altered or a new one passed. 
Mr. Panton : We have considered this case and see no 
necessity for altering our decision. We think the penalty 
inflicted is very moderate. There will be a fine of 20s. with 
£2 ^2s. costs — taking into -consideration the double atten- 
dance. 
The following is a copy of the correspondence referred to by 
Mr. Emerson in is remarks to the Bench : — 
(The Society’s Solicitors to the Compainants’ Solicitors.) 
7th December, 1886. 
“We need hardly inform you that the decision of to-day 
being adverse to the Society the vending of drugs by the 
Society will be at once stopped. As the object of your client 
has been gained we do not see the necessity of bringing the 
summons before Mr. Panton again and if you will send us 
your costs we have no doubt we shall be enabled to agree to 
them. 
“ Yours truly, 
“LYNCH, McDonald & stillman.” 
(The Complainants’ Solicitors to the Society’s Solicitors.) 
9th December, 1886, 
“ Dear Sirs, — We are in receipt of yours of the 7th inst., and 
understanding therefrom that the Equitable Co-operative 
Society, Limited, will at once discontinue carrying on the 
business of Chemist aud Druggist, we are willing to fall in with 
your views as to not further proceeding against the Society for 
any breaches of the Pharmacy Act that may have hitherto 
been committed, and we are also willing to save unnecessary 
expense by allowing the summons (which must be placed on 
the list again) to be struck out subject to the two following 
conditions; — 1. That the Society publicly announce to a 
reasonable extent by advertisement, circular, &c., that the 
business of chemist and druggist, heretofore carred on by it, 
has been discontinued. 2. That the Society pay us all our 
costs as between solicitor and client from the initiation of the 
Police court proceedings, and return the £2 2s. paid to you. 
We will be glad of your early reply. 
“ Yours faithfully, 
“EMERSON & BARROW” 
On this case the Australian Medical Journal remarks: — 
“ The case has been finally decided. . . The actual expenses 
must have been heavy and time will show whether the Pharma- 
ceutical Society will try to have the verdict thus obtained 
applied to other companies or stores trading in medicines along 
with other articles.’* 
A CHEMIST’S DEFENCE FUND. 
The following circular has been distributed to chemists in 
Victoria during the last days of the month. Although pre- 
pared, and submitted to the Council of the Pharmaceutical 
Society of Australasia, it was sent out in franked envelopes, as 
if on Government business, thus costing nothing for post- 
age 
“ [confidential.] 
“ THE PHARMACY BOARD OF VICTORIA. 
“The Chemist’s and Druggist’s Defence Fund. 
Melbourne, January, 1887. 
“Dear Sir, — Frequent complaints have been made to the 
Pharmacy Board that the provisions of the “ Sale and Use of 
Poisons Act ” have not been carried out, and that unautho- 
rised persons are able to defy the law by selling prohibited 
articles with impunity. It will be in your recollection that 
during the past ten years the Board have instituted a large 
number of prosecutions under the Poisons Act, amounting in 
the aggregate to over three hundred cases ; but owing to the 
expense of obtaining evidence in remote country districts, and 
the fact that magistrates have not awarded reasonable costs 
when convictions were obtained, the result has almost invari- 
ably resulted in pecuniary loss to the Board. At the conclu- 
sion of the prosecutions in the year 1885 this subject was 
brought under the notice of the Government, and the small 
amount at the disposal of the Board for the administration of 
the “ Sale and Use of Poisons Act” pointed out. The Govern- 
ment, however, considered that the Act was passed as much 
for the protection of Pharmaceutical Chemists as for the pub- 
lic, and did not see their way to increase the annual vote to 
the Board, and, under these circumstances, the Board have 
had under consideration the best means of coping with the 
difficulty, and a suggestion has been made that many Phar- 
maceutical Chemists might be willing to contribute a small 
annual sum to a fund for the purpose of indemnifying the 
Board against loss in the carrying out of prosecutions in dif- 
ferent parts of the colony. One of the principal difficulties the 
Board have to contend with is obtaining reliable reports as to 
infringements of the Act, and it will be obvious to you that to 
collect this information costs both time and money. A system- 
atic effort to administer the Act can only be made by Con- 
fidential and Privilege 1 information supplied by Pharma- 
ceutical Chemists, and .t is therefore earnestly hoped that the 
appended report, which will be treated as strictly Confidential, 
may be filled in and returned to me at [once. It is desirable 
to obtain evidence in a large number of cases in all parts of 
the colony, as, when once prosecutions are commenced, the 
difficulty of obtaining evidence is greatly increased.— Trusting 
or your co-operation and supi^ort, 
I am, yours truly, 
Harry Shillinglaw, Registrar. 
The second page reads as follows : — 
“ [confidential anr privileged.] 
“ The Chemist’s and Druggist’s Defence Fund. 
“ Name of town or district. 
“ Name of person or firm, and the prohibited article sold. 
“Any other suggestions you consider desirable in reference to 
your district that will be of service to the officer collecting the 
evidence. 
