530 
THE CHEMIST AND DKIIGGIST 
October 5, 1895 
Xeaal TRcporte, 
PHARMACY ACr PROSECUriONS IN EDINBURGH. 
The following were the judgments of Sherilf- Substitute 
Sym, delivered on September 26 in the Edinburgh Sheriff 
Court, in the cases taken under the Pharmacy Acts against 
Messrs. Turnbull and Hume. We gave a brief summary of 
these judgments last week. 
Tdknbull’3 Case. 
John M. Turnbull, designating himself as a photographic 
chemist, 6 Rose Street, Edinburgh, was charged with keeping 
open shop for retailing, compounding, and dispensing 
poisons, he not being a registered chemist, with selling 1 cz. 
of bichloride of mercury, and with exhibiting the title of 
chemist over his door against the provisions of the Act. 
His Lordship’s judgment in that case was as follows : — 
The respondent is a dealer in articles of all descriptions 
which are used in photography, and keeps a shop for that 
purpose at 6 Rose Street, Edinburgh. Some of these articles 
are chemical substances, and of these some are poisons. In 
a circular which he issues he intimates that he does not sell 
poisons enumerated in the Pharmacy Act, except in whole- 
sale quantities. His instructions to his assistants were nob 
to sell such poisons by retail, but only to sell them to 
persons engaged in photography and to chemists, and on 
some occasions it appears that he and his assistants have 
refused to sell such poisons. On the day libelled, a man 
named Spence, who happens to be a chemist, but was un- 
known to the respondent and his assistants, went to the 
respondent’s shop on the instructions of the local secretary 
of the Pharmaceutical Society. The respondent was out. 
Spence asked an assistant for certain photographic plates, 
and also asked how corrosive sublimate was sold. He was 
told that it was sold at Zd. per cz. He said he would buy 
1 oz. He was asked no farther question, and paid for his 
purchases, including Zd. for the corrosive sublimate. It was 
wrapped in a piece of paper, and he carried it to his em- 
ployer, who analysed a small part of it. No quantitative 
analysis was made, but it was proved that this was 
a very dangerous poison even in very small quantities. The 
defence maintained to me was that this was a wholesale 
transaction, and therefore did not fall within the prohibition 
contained in the statutory provision libelled. I was of 
opinion that it was not, but was a retail sale. But I was of 
opinion that these facts, while they might have justified a 
prosecution of the assistant, or possibly of the respondent, 
for the offence of selling poison without legal qualification, 
did not, havirg regard to the other facts of the case as I 
have stated them, constitute what has been held to be the 
different and independent offence of keeping an open shop 
for retailing, dispensing, or compounding of poisons. I 
therefore hold the first charge not proved. The second 
charge is that the respondent styles himself a chemist, 
contrary to sections 1 and 15 of the Pharmacy Act. It was 
proved that he has a sign describing him as a “photo- 
graphic chemist.” The latter word is over the front of the 
shop ; the former is at the corner looking into another street. 
But the word“photographic”i3 intended to qualify the word 
“chemist,” and though the latter word can be seen from 
some points from which the former is invisible, the respon- 
dent did not intend to represent himself as a “ chemist.” The 
respondent also styles himself a “photographic chemist” in 
the circular to which I made reference under the first charge. 
It was maintained to me by my friend, Mr. Morison, that 
use of the word “chemist,” whether alone or qualified by 
any other word, was safficient to constitute the offence 
charged. From the use of the word “ chemist ” in ordinary 
speech, I was of opinion that it was a word of which the 
signification is capable of being limited by the context in 
which it is used, and that, in considering whether the 
offence charged had been committed, it was necessary to 
construe it by reference to the mischief aimed at by the Act 
— the retailing, compounding, and dispensing of drugs 
without legal qualification. The cases in the English county 
court to which I was referred were cases in which the 
Judge decided that the accused person was conducting 
such a business, and was endeavouring to evade the statute 
by prefixing such an adjective as “analytical” to his desig- 
nation as “ chemist.” If that be all which these cafes 
decided, I agree with them. Bab I think that that is not 
the case of the respondent, and, therefore, that the second 
charge is not proved. 
Hume’s Case, 
William Hume, designated as a scientific-instrument maker,. 
1 Lothian Street and West College Street, Edinburgh, was 
charged with the same offences, the poison sold being 4 cz. 
cyanide of potassium. His Lordship said, in reference to this* 
case : — The respondent is a maker of fcientific instraments, 
and has a thorough knowledge of chemistry. He does not 
dispute that in the course of his business he sells, and has 
sold for many years, chemical substances, including poisons 
included in the Pharmacy Act, and he maintained that it 
was legitimate to do so, and I understood from him that a- 
correspondence had passed between him and the Society 
several years ago upon the subject. On the day libelltd 
Thomas Allan, a person employed by the Pharmaceutical 
Society for the purposes of the Act, went to the respondent’s 
shop at 1 Lothian Street, Edinburgh, and asked for cyanide 
of potassium, which is one of the poisons scheduled in the 
Pharmacy Act. An assistant named Smith, who has a know- 
ledge of chemistry, bub who is not a pharmaceutical chemist, 
supplied him with 2 oz. thereof. The transaction was 
recorded in a memorandum-book kept in the shop. In that 
book the purpose of the purchase is stated to be that of 
“ cleaning plate,” upon Allan’s information. This was a 
retail transaction, and appeared to be done in the ordinary 
course of business. I think there is sufficient evidence that 
he kept open shop for retailing poisons, and that the 
Act debars him from so doing. I therefore find 
the first charge proved ; but, as the respondent 
seemed to be acting hond Jide^ and the prosecution 
appeared to be only for the purpose of raising the question, 
of his right to sell poison, I fine him in the nominal 
penalty of l5., but order him to pay the costs, which 1 
modify at Zl. 2«. The second charge is wholly founded upon 
the use of the words “ technical chemist,” in a trade 
circular issued by the respondent. I do not think the 
offence constituted thereby for the reasons stated in 
Tarnbull’s case. 
Mr. T. B, Morison, for the complainer, asked the Sbedff 
to state a case for the High Court, which his Lordship siid 
he would do. 
Mr, Trotter, for the respondent Turnbull, asked expenses- 
in his case. 
The Sheriff said he did not think it was a case for 
expenses. 
PHARMACY ACT CASE IN LIVERPOOL. 
At the Liverpool County Court, on Monday, before his 
Honour Judge Collier, Owen Thomas Jones, of 89 Marsh 
Lane, Bootle, near Liverpool, was sued by the Pharmaceutical 
Society to recover penalties under the Pharmacy Act of 
1868. Mr. T. R. Grey, barrister, appeared for the plaintiffs; 
and Mr. B. Bardsley, solicitor, appeared for the defendant. 
Mr. Grey stated that the plaintiffs sought to recover 
penalties of 5Z. each, one in respect of the defendant having 
wrongfully used the title of chemist, and t’ae other for 
keeping open a shop for the sale of poisons, not being 
a registered chemist. Section 13 of the Act provided that 
the register, which was produced in court, should be con- 
sidered as evidence, and if the name of the person who was 
a defendant did not appear in it, that fact was evidence that 
he was not a chemist and druggist within the meaning of 
the Act. In regard to the other information, it was alleged 
that the defendant had sold Towle’s chlorodyne, which con- 
tained morphine, the latter being one of the poisons referred 
to in the schedule. 
The Judge asked if there was any defence. 
Mr. Bardsley replied that the defendant denied that the 
poison was sold in his shop. 
Evidence was then called. 
Arthur Foulds, an inquiry agent, said that in July last he 
was instructed to make certain purchases. On the 6th of 
that month he went to the shop at 89 Marsh Lane, Bootle, 
occupied by the defendant, and asked for a small bottle of 
glycerine. This he was supplied with, and he afterwards- 
