Vol. X., No. 10. 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
209 
THE VICTORIAN BENEVOLENT FUND. 
We are officially informed that an application for assist- 
ance from the benevolent fund of the Pharmaceutical 
Society of Australasia was received at the last meeting, but 
the applicant having already received assistance, it was 
resolved that a reply be sent that, in consequence of the 
many calls upon the fund, the Council were unable to vote 
any additional sum. We are not acquainted with the 
details of this application, but in a recent case where a 
chemist had died after an illness of some years, during 
which all his means had been exhausted, and his widow 
applied for some assistance, the first acknowledgment of the 
application contained the sentence — “I note that your 
husband was not a member of the Pharmaceutical Society.” 
The suggestion conveyed to the mind was that, as he was 
not a member, he had little claim upon the funds. It is 
true that a small sum, about £2, was voted in this case, so 
that the practice was better than the suggested theory. 
From much conversation with chemists — members and non- 
members-— we are convinced that it would be easy to increase 
the revenue of the Benevolent Fund if the work were set 
about heartily, and some modification were made in the 
methods of dealing with applications. We have previously 
pointed out that the Benevolent Fund of the British Society 
is administered with very little regard to the question 
whether applicants or their husbands or fathers have been 
connected with the Society. The first paragraph, describing 
the Fund, in the Calendar of the Society says that — 
“Formerly, according to the rules laid down for its distribu- 
tion in the Charter, relief could not be granted to persons 
whose connection with the Society had ceased. This was 
felt to interfere materially with the usefulness of the Fund, 
and advantage was taken of the opportunity afforded by the 
Pharmacy Act of 1868 to insert a clause by which power 
was vested in the Council to grant aid not only to members 
and associates for the time being, but to all persons who 
had been registered as pharmaceutical chemists, or chemists 
and druggists, whether connected with the Society or not.” 
The result of this change has evidently been most satis- 
factory, for the income of the fund from subscriptions 
increased from £491 Is. in 1860 to £1607 Os. lid. in 1891, 
the latter amount being exclusive of donations received 
during the year. The capital of the fund reached in 1892 
the sum of £24,438. “ All genuine cases of necessity pre- 
sented to the Council are aided by temporary assistance,” 
and the system of granting annuities was initiated in 1865. 
The annual list of casual grants is extensive, and shows 
rarely any sum belov^ £5, the majority of cases being for 
£10, with several £12, £15, and £20. In this annual state- 
ment particulars are given of the necessities of those who 
have been the recipients of grants. No names are men- 
tioned, but sufficient details are given to show that in every 
case the money has been well expended. 
If the Council of the Victorian Society would make a 
hearty and genuine appeal to the registered chemists of the 
colony, announcing that in future the policy would be to 
relieve the distress of registered chemists, their wives, or 
families, apart from the question whether they have been 
members of the Society or not, and would undertake to 
publish annually some such brief statement of the reasons 
for the expenditure in each case, as is provided in the 
calendar of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 
we are confident that even in these bad times chemists 
would respond liberally. The first year’s application with 
the novelty and unexpected character of the appeal, might, 
perhaps, not yield as much as could be desired. But if it 
were made part of the regular policy of the Society, and the 
appeals were sent out every year at about the same time, 
tact and discretion being used to see that this was as well 
chosen as might be, it would not be long before a fund would 
be established which would more than bear every reason- 
able call. It is only a few years ago that a trade assignee 
in Melbourne remarked that chemists seemed a very pros- 
perous body. He had never had one of their businesses 
through his hands. And this was borne out by the fact that 
applications for assistance from the fund were practically 
unknown. Unfortunately, the last five years have produced 
a great change in this respect. Cases of insolvency and of 
distress of other kinds which do not come before the public 
have multiplied, while the fund has become almost 
exhausted. We should be glad to see the Pharmaceutical 
Society taking steps to meet the want which has certainly 
arisen. 
THE CARBOY CASE. 
The case of the Pharmacy Board of Queensland v. 
Dixon has established a record for Queensland. It was 
heard on four occasions, on three of which there 
was an equally-divided bench. The first case was heard 
by two magistrates ; two others, who were present 
during the early part of the hearing, retired after lunch. 
There were five witnesses (none being called for the defence), 
and the hearing occupied the whole of one day. On the 
second occasion the number of magistrates had increased to 
four, being the same who were present at the commence- 
ment of the original hearing. The witnesses were nine in 
number, six for the prosecution and three for the defence, 
and the time occupied was a day and a-half. When it 
again came on for hearing the bench had been increased to 
ten members, the original four and six others; the witnesses 
were twelve in place of nine, the proportion being eight for 
the prosecution and four for the defence, and nearly the whole 
of two days was taken up. On the fourth and last occasion 
there was a further addition to the bench, seven others joining 
the ten who had heard the previous case, and it is reported 
that two other magistrates would have sat but all the avail- 
able space was occupied, and any new comers would have 
had to sit on the floor of the court. The number of wit- 
nesses was not increased, but the time taken in hearing the 
case extended to two and a-half days. At the first three 
hearings each side was represented by a solicitor and a 
barrister. On the fourth occasion the defendant’s case was 
entrusted to Mr. Virgil Power, who is Crown Prosecutor 
and one of the leaders at the Queensland bar. During the 
several hearings some incidents worth recording were noted. 
One witness spoke of a carboy as a swan-neck, or goose-neck 
carboy, and thought that the defendant’s place of business 
might be a glass merchant’s, because he had glass vessels 
filled with coloured liquid in his window. Another 
witness did not consider a carboy was a carboy unless it 
was filled with coloured liquid, and had a light behind it. 
There was great diversity of opinion as to what a carboy is, 
some witnesses construing the term in its widest and others 
in its narrowest sense. When Mr. Power was quoting the 
opinion of Sir Thos. MTlwraith on the Pharmacy Act in its 
relation to homoeopathic chemists, one of the members of 
the bench rose and said Sir Thos. MTlwraith did not know 
what he was talking about. Later on, when Mr. Power had 
for the third time referred to clause 27 as interpreting the 
word “ sign,” and one of the magistrates put some questions 
to him on the matter, he (Mr. Power) said that “ he was 
trying to knock it into their heads,” afterwards explaining 
that the remark was meant to refer to one of the magis- 
trates only. A difference took place between one of the 
magistrates at the first and second hearings and 
the counsel for the prosecution, and later on a slight 
squabble arose between two members of the bench, 
the one having stated that it was not the other’s 
week on the roster. Apart from any interest the 
case may have created from the question at issue, the 
fact of the bench having increased to such an extent, and 
there being three occasions on which they were equally 
divided in opinion, has been sufficient to make the case of 
the Pharmacy Board of Queensland v. Dixon a common 
topic, and to set going all kinds of rumors as to the motives 
at the bottom of the prosecution, as to the respective merits 
of homoeopathy and allopathy, and as to the why and 
wherefore of the particular case under consideration. As 
notice of appeal has been given, and the question is likely 
to be re-opened in a higher court, we are precluded from 
commenting on the decision of the magistrates or discussing 
the merits of the case itself and entering into the many 
interesting questions which it has raised. It is said that 
it will be heard before the Full Court in October next, but 
the rearrangement which may be rendered necessary owing 
to the death of one of the judges may cause its postpone- 
ment. 
