Vol. X., No. 10. 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
22;l 
Inseetibane Trade Marks Case —In the Supreme 
Court, on September 9, Mr. Justice Real heard an action 
brought by Rocke, Tompsitt and Co., -of Melbourne, against 
L. Henderson, of Brisbane, for infringement of trade mark. 
The plaintiifs claimed to be the manufacturers of a prepara- 
tion called “ Inseetibane,” which name they had registered 
as a trade mark. Defendant, they alleged, was selling an 
article other than theirs under this name, and they sought an 
injunction restraining him from infringing their trade 
mark, and from selling or passing off any goods which were 
a colourable imitation of theirs. They further asked an 
account of profits obtained by defendant from the sale of 
the objectionable preparation. His Honour, by consent, 
gave judgment for the injunction asked for, with the excep- 
tion of the part prohibiting the use of the word “ Insecti- 
bane.” He expressed doubt whether the latter was a word 
which could be held as a trade mark, inasmuch as it 
appeared to be descriptive of the article itself, and was not 
a fancy word. The remainder of the order was granted as 
asked, with costs. 
ARE CARBOYS DISTINCTIVE OF A CHEMIST’S SHOP. 
Pharmacy Board or Queensland v. Dixon. 
This case, which had already been heard on three previous 
occasions, owing to the bench disagreeing, was again heard 
in the summons division of the City Police Court on Sep- 
tember 9. The Bench consisted of 17 magistrates, viz,, 
Messrs. G. P. M, Murray, P.M., J. A. Clark, Thorn, Robert, 
Fenwick, Southall, South, Massie, Capner, and Male (who 
had been present at the previous hearing), together with 
Messrs. Lang, M‘Dermott, Harris, Southerden, M‘Donnell, 
Lethem, and M‘Culloch. Mr. J. L. Woolcock, instructed by 
Mr. W. H. Bell, appeared for the Pharmacy Board, and 
Mr. Virgil Power, with him Mr. Arthur S. Liiley, instructed 
by Mr. T. O. Cowlishaw, for the defendant. Mr. Power 
objected to the information on the ground that it was bad, 
and that it did not disclose any offence under the Pharmacy 
Act. It was no offence for anyone to describe himself as a 
“manufacturer of homoeopathic medicines.” The words, 
“ other vessels, articles, Ac., commonly exhibited by 
chemists and druggists,” wei’e too general and vague, and did 
not afford the defendant an opportunity of knowing the 
offence with which he was charged. Again, referring to 
“ Saunders on Indictments,” he submitted that the informa- 
tion was bad because an offence must not be charged in the 
alternative, whereas the defendant was charged with 
exhibiting signs which might be “ construed to mean that 
he was qualified to perform the duties of a pharmaceutical 
chemist, pharmaceutist, pharmacist, chemist and druggist, 
dispensing chemist, or dis’pensiruj druggist,'’^ He asked that 
the information be dismissed. Mr. Woolcock, in reply, 
stated that the information was quite good, and he declined 
to apply for any amendment. The words “other vessels 
and articles commonly exhibited by chemists and druggists” 
were surplusage, and he did not intend to offer any evidence 
on that part of the indictment. The bench having retired 
to consider Mr. Power’s application for a dismissal, the 
presiding magistrate stated that they had decided not to 
dismiss the case. Mr. Power also objected that Mr. W. H. 
Bell, solicitor for the plaintiffs, had no authority to lay the 
information. Mr. Woolcock pointed out that the Justices 
Act gave Mr. Bell, as solicitor for the Board, authority to 
lay the information. 
Mr. Power asked that all the objections he had made be 
taken down. 
R. M. Riley, private detective, gave evidence similar to 
that he had given at the previous hearings. Mr. Power 
objected to the witness describing the articles he saw in the 
defendant’s window as carboys. It was for the bench and 
not for the witness to decide whether the vessels were 
carboys or not. After a long discussion, the bench again 
retired to consider the objection. It was decided to admit 
the answer, and the objection was noted. Mr. Power also 
objected to the question — “Do you know what articles 
chemists usually exhibit in their windows?” Objection 
overruled, and question admitted. The witness stated that 
chemists usually exhibited carboys in their windows. 
George Faulkner, in addition to evidence similar to that 
given at former hearings, stated that he attached import- 
QUEENSLAND. 
ance to a vessel filled with coloured liquid when it \vas used 
in conjunction with things similar to those in a chemists’ 
shop. 
E. C. Blake, Registrar of Pharmacy Board, gave evidence 
that the defendant was not registered. Mr. Power admitted 
that the defendant was not registered as a pharmaceutical 
chemist. Mr. Power objected to the witness being asked 
what the words, “ manufacturer of homoeopathic medicines” 
conveyed to his mind. After a lengthy argument, the 
objection was upheld. Did not consider the article illus- 
trated in Burgoyne, Burbidges A Co.’s catalogue to be 
similar to those exhibited by the defendant, as it was a 
confectioner’s jar with a loose lid. 
George Henry Pickburn, dispenser at the Brisbane Gaol, 
stated that he had been a registered chemist for 2G years. 
He did not consider there was any limit to the shape or size 
of carboys. Had similar carboys in his own shop in 
England. Chemists used carboys as a symbol or sign of 
their business. After this witness’ evidence was concluded, 
the court adjourned at 4.20 until 10 a.m. on the following 
morning. 
When the court resumed on Tuesday morning, Messrs. D. 
J. Clarke, A. S. Denham, W. G. Clapperton, and H. E. 
Cook gave evidence much the same as what was given in the 
other hearings, Mr. Power making the same objections to 
the evidence as to the carboys as he had done in the case of 
the witness Riley. The case for the prosecution being 
closed, Mr. Power asked the bench to dismiss the case with- 
out putting the witnesses for the defence to the trouble of 
having to give their evidence. The arguments which he 
adduced in support of his application were similar to those 
he had used at the commencement of the case. His state- 
ment that Mr. Woolcock bad abandoned that portion of the 
charge which referred to the words on the defendant’s 
window was strongly denied, and on referring to the notes 
made by the deposition clerk, it was found that Mr. 'Wool- 
cock had stated that he did not intend to offer any evidence 
with regard to “ other vessels and articles,” but that the 
remainder of the information was good. The bench retired 
to consider Mr. Power’s application, and decided to go on 
with the case. 
For the defence, Dr. Hartley Dixon, and Messrs. Gamble, 
Thiele, and Colledge repeated their former evidence. 
Dr. Dixon stated that his son had a license to sell poisons. 
Mr. Thomas Maughan, a registered pharmaceutical 
chemist, stated that he would not consider the articles ex- 
hibited by defendant to be carboys, even if filled wdth 
coloured liquid. He would call them show jars or specie 
jars. Would not take defendant’s shop to be that of a 
chemist. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Woolcock : Carboys were a sign 
of a chemist’s business in Queensland. The vessels in 
defendant’s window were put there to make a show. He 
put carboys in his own window to make a show. He knew 
of several other kinds of carboys. "Vessels described as 
show bottles in Whittall Tatum’s list were known to him 
as carboys. A homoeopathic chemist was one who prepared 
medicine from the crude drug until ready to give to the 
patient. Practically the manufacturer of homoeopathic 
medicines was the same as a homoeopathic chemist. A 
homoeopathic chemist would not want to know as much as 
a pharmaceutical chemist. Did not. believe in homoeopathy. 
Re-examined by Mr. Power : There was a great difference 
between a manufacturer of homoeopathic medicines and a 
pharmaceutical chemist. Had seen carboys in herbalists’, 
confectioners’, perfumers’, and oil refiners’. Thousands of 
herbalists in London used carboys. The evidence for the 
defendant having concluded, the court adjourned until 2.30 
p.m. on the following day. 
Wednesday. — Mr. Power, addressing the bench on behalf 
of the defendant, stated that the bench were in the position 
of having to act as judge and jury. It was a legal fiction 
that every man was supposed to know the law. He sub- 
mitted that no case had been made out against the defen- 
dant. Even if the article which the defendant was charged 
with exhibiting were a carboy, and he considered that the 
evidence conclusively proved that it was not, it was not an 
offence to use it. He would draw the attention of the 
bench to a clause in the Act which he felt no hesitation in 
saying completely answered the charge laid against the 
