388 
A CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST FINED FOR ILLEGALLY SELLING 
POISON. 
This morning, Mr. Thomas Goodman, chemist and druggist, Bradshawgate, was sum¬ 
moned before the borough magistrates, there being on the Bench the Mayor (R. Stock- 
dale, Esq.), Aldermen Hey wood and Orton, and J. Cannon, Esq., to answer a charge of 
having sold “ to one Catherine Joyce, a certain quantity of virulent poison, to wit, half- 
an-ounce of almond flavour, such sale not being made in the presence of a witness, and 
not having at the time of such sale correctly entered in a book the names and addresses 
of such person and witness, and the nature and quantity of the poison purchased, and 
the alleged purpose for which it was intended to be used.” Mr. Hall appeared to prose¬ 
cute, and Mr. Richardson defended. The case excited a good deal of interest, and several 
members of the trade attended, amongst whom were Mr. Blain, secretary to the Che¬ 
mists’ Association, Mr. G. E. Griffin, Deansgate, and others. 
Mr. Hall, in opening the case, said this was a charge against Mr. Goodman for having 
on the 21th November sold half an ounce of almond flavour, the same not being sold in 
the presence of a witness or entered in a book. The summons was made out under the 
Local Improvement Act of 1851, the 38th section of which reads as follows:— 
“If any chemist, druggist, or other person in Bolton, sell any virulent poison to any 
person, except in the presence of a witness, and do not at the time of such sale correctly 
enter in a book the names and addresses of such person and witness, and the nature and 
quantity of the poison purchased, and the alleged purpose for which it is intended to 
be used, every person so offending shall for every such offence forfeit a sum not ex¬ 
ceeding £5 ; and the burden of proving that this enactment has been complied with 
shall rest on the person charged with such offence.” 
In this case he (Mr. Hall) should be able to show their worships that on Friday week 
a young woman named Catherine Joyce went into Mr. Goodman’s shop and asked for a 
quantity of almond flavour, with which Mr. Goodman supplied her. As to what she did 
with it was a question entirely beyond the purposes of this prosecution; nor was Mr. 
Goodman in any way responsible for the use she made of it. The Legislature had wisely 
provided for the protection of the public in reference to the sale of articles of a poisonous 
character, and, in this instance, the poison (though the purpose to which it was to be 
applied might seem to be not entirely an improper one) had been sold without the pro¬ 
tective regulations imposed by the Act being complied with, the article having been sold 
without any witness being present, and the sale of the article had not been entered in a 
book. In these cases the burden of proof that the conditions of the Act had not been 
complied with, rested with the defendant; it was sufficient for the prosecution to show 
that the poison was so sold. 
Mr. W. E. Whitehead was the first witness, and said :—I am a confectioner, and have 
a shop in Deansgate. I have had a person named Catherine Joyce in my service, whom 
I discharged on Friday, the 24 th ult. She left my place about a quarter past seven in 
the evening. I next saw her in the shop of Mr. Goodman, a little after half-past eight, 
only say, that containing but an analysis of the claims of the four candidates who were declared 
by the Council eligible, and a statement of the reasons which influenced his vote for one of 
them in particular, it would have been manifestly improper to publish it. All persons approved 
as candidates have a right to stand on their own merits, and all would have a right to complain 
if the claims of any were enhanced or depreciated in the pages of this Journal. 
The question regarding the legality of the pension to Mrs. Goldfinch would more properly 
have been addressed to the Secretary, but we may add, that to us there seems no doubt on the 
subject. Members and Associates Living must certainly have been connected four years with 
the Society. Widows and Orphans are rightly placed on a different footing, and there is no 
mention in the Bye-laws of anything to the contrary; they are described as “such Widows and 
Orphans of Members or Associates as shall be in necessitous circumstances.” We can easily 
conceive, and honour, the motives which guided the framers of this regulation; widows and 
orphans are deprived of their natural supporters, and are in a far more helpless condition than 
inen when overtaken by adversity. 
The practice of withholding the names of recipients of casual relief seems to he only a proper 
consideration for the feelings of those persons, who, although needing assistance to-day, may, 
by energy and good fortune, recover their position to-morrow.—Er». Phahm. Jouen. 
