October 5, 1895 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST 
531 
asked for, and obtained, a small bottle of Towle s chlorodyne. 
He handed the purchases to Mr. Moon as representing the 
Pharmaceutical Society. 
In cross-examination, witness stated that he went to the 
shop for the purpose oE purchasing a poison, bat he asked 
for a bottle of glycerine. The bottles of Towle's chlorodyne 
were in a case in the shop, and he should say there were 
about twenty of them. 
Mr. Grey stated that chlorodyne contained about 2 grains 
of morphine to the fluid ounce. 
Owen Thomas Jones, who said he kept a drug and tea 
store in Marsh Lane, denied that he ever sold a bottle of 
Towle’s chlorodyne, or described himself as a chemist and 
druggist. He never had any bottles of Towle s chlorodyne 
in his shop, and he never saw the witness Foulds in his life. 
His wife, however, was in the shop on July 6. 
Arthur Foulds (recalled) said it was the defendant’s wife 
who served him. She took the bottle of chlorodyne pro- 
duced out of a case. 
The defendant was shown the small bottle of glycerine, 
and admitted that it had come out of his shop. Notwith- 
standing the evidence of Foulds he declared that he had 
never had chlorodjne in his shop. He had never been asked 
for it. . . j 
Mrs. Jones, the wife of the defendant, was examined, and 
stoutly denied having sold to Foulds a bottle of chlorodyne. 
The Judge held that the Pharmaceutical Society ^ had 
made out their case, and gave judgment for both penalties— 
102. in all — and costs. 
UNSTAMPED SCALES AND MEASURES. 
Me. John Walton, chemist and druggist, Lower Horsley 
Fields, was summoned, under the Weights and Measures Act, 
at the Wolverhampton Petty Sessions on September 23, for 
having in his possession for trade purposes a small scale and 
two apothecary’s measures which were unstamped. Inspector 
Allwoid, who proved the case, stated that he bad warned 
Mr. Walton, and a fine of 5s. and costs was imposed in each 
case. 
SPONGE-SAMPLES AND BREAKING BULK. 
In the City of London Court, on September 30. Mr. John 
Goldhill, sponge-merchant, 17 Houndsditch, E.C., sought to 
recover 62. 7s. ^d. for sponges supplied to the Leeds Slate 
and Marble Company. Mr. Levi, plaintiff’s solicitor, said the 
sponges were supplied on May 26 last, according to the 
defendants’ order. Mr. Aldous, defendants’ solicitor, said 
the defendants declined to pay, because the sponges, as 
delivered, were not equal to the sample from which they 
were ordered. Mr. Levi said the defendants had broken 
bulk. They could not reject the sponges now. Mr. Com- 
missioner Kerr thought the defendants might pay for what 
they had used and reject the rest. Mr. Aldous said that was 
the question which he wanted the Court to decide, as it 
was an important one to traders. Three samples of sponges 
were sent to the defendants by the plaintiff. The defendants’ 
order was that the sponges were to be according to a 
selected sample, to which the bulk did not correspond. The 
defendants put a few of the sponges into the hands of their 
workmen before they could tell what they were like. Some 
had been used, and that could not be helped. The defen- 
dants had paid 33s. into court in respect of those which 
were used, but they claimed the right to return the rest. 
They might have broken bulk, but that was unavoidable 
under the circumstances. Mr. Levi said the sponges were a 
particularly cheap line, and the defendants had kept all the 
best, and now wanted the plaintiff to take back the others. 
Mr. Aldous : That we have not done. Mr. Commissioner 
Kerr said he thought the defendants must pay ior the 
sponges as they had broken bulk. Mr. Levi added that the 
defendants used a quarter of the sponges. Mr. Aldous 
said the sponges sent to them should have been whole 
sponges, whereas some of them consisted of little pieces 
patched together. Mr. Commissioner Kerr said he must find 
for the plaintiff, but the defendants could bring an action 
against the plaintiff to recover damages if they were so 
inclined. The case would then be tried by a jury, who were 
the best judges in a case of that character. 
PROSECUTION UNDER THE PHARMACY ACT 
(IRELAND). 
At Belfast Petty Sessions, on September 27, before Mr. 
Thos. McClelland, J.P. (presiding), Dr. McGee, and Mr^ 
T. A. Doran, J.P., the Pnarmaceutical Society of Ireland 
were complainants in five summonses brought agaii^fc 
Alexander Bryans, druggist, Agnes^ Street. ^ Two of the 
summonses charged the defendant with keeping open shop- 
for compounding medical prescriptions on August 12 and 
on August 17, he not being a registered pharmacist, and in 
two more the offence alleged was that of compounding 
prescriptions on these dates. The fifth summons was for 
having sold poisons on June 18. 
Mr. W. B. Galway, solicitor, Belfast, appeared on behalf 
of the Society, and the defendant was represented by Mr. 
Harper. 
Mr. Galway, in opening: the case, read the 30th section ot 
the Pharmacy Act of 1875, and said the penalty was 52. in 
each case. 
Dr. McGee said he knew the Act as well as Mr. Galway. 
Mr. Galway: And possibly much better. 
Dr. McGee said the default was two months’ imprison- 
ment. 
Mr. Galway said that was a matter he would not go into. 
Dr. McGee said the summary of the Act was that any 
person selling or compounding prescriptions, not being a 
pharmaceutical chemist, rendered himself liable to that 
penalty. 
The Chairman said they were not talking abontasummary^ 
of the Act. Mr. Galway was quoting the statute, and he 
should be allowed to go on. 
Mr. Galway thereupon called 
Wm. Gibson, who said that on August 12 he went into 
Mr. Bryans’ shop, and tendered him the prescription (pro- 
duced), which had been written by Dr. John 8. Morrow,. 
Carlisle Circus. The defendant compounded it, and the- 
medicine is that in the bottle produced. 
Dr. McGee read the prescription, and said there was no 
poison in it. 
Mr. P. J. Lyons, pharmaceutical chemist, Royal Avenue, a 
member of the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society of 
Ireland, said the prescription produced was what was recog- 
nised in the profession as a medical prescription. 
Mr. Harper said there were five summonses against the 
defendant, so that if ever there was an attempt to ruin a 
man, this was one to absolutely ruin Mr. Bryans. He would 
withdraw the plea of not guilty, and plead guilty to one 
of the offences. He need not address their Worships on the 
point of mitigating the penalty, because they had no power 
to do so. His client thought he would have passed the 
examination for which he went up some time ago, and the 
place being open he carried it on since. 
Mr. Galway said that even supposing he had passed the 
examination for a druggist, that would not have enabled 
him to compound prescriptions. 
Mr. Harper said he would ask the Bench to intimate to 
the complainants that they ought to rest content with a con- 
viction on one of the summonses. 
Dr. McGee said he was sure the Society did not want vin- 
dictive damages ; that they merely wanted the prosecotion 
to act as a caution to the public ; and, that being so, he 
thought the Society should withdraw four of the summonses 
and allow the Bench, as they were disposed, to fine the de- 
fendant 5^. 
Mr. Galway said the lives of the public must be protected, 
Mr. Doran : It is a very serious offence. 
Mr. Galway said his instructions were to prove all the 
cases. 
After some discussion he consented to withdraw the two 
summonses for “ keeping open shop,” but he pressed for a 
conviction on the other summons for compounding a pre- 
scription for Andrew Downey on Angust 17. This charge 
having been proved. 
Dr. McGee asked if the Bench had no discretion in the 
penalty to be imposed for compounding prescriptions? 
Mr. Galway : None whatever. Nobody bnt the Lord Lieu- 
tenant could mitigate the penalty. 
The Bench then imposed 52. in each of the two summonses 
for compounding the prescriptions, and for selling poisons a 
fine of Is , with 10s. 6d. costs, was imposed. 
