156 
PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE PHARMACY ACT. 
Sale of Oxalic Acid.— At Gloucester, James Dancey was charged under the new 
« pharmacy Act ” with selling poisons without having the name and address of the 
Mr. Taynton, who prosecuted, stated that the present Act was an amendment of the 
Act of 1852, and afforded greater protection to the public, inasmuch as it prevented un¬ 
qualified persons selling poisons or practising as chemists. The defendant had, for some 
time past; resided in Gloucester, and had fitted up a shop for the sale of drugs and carried 
on the business of a chemist. He put up a board in his shop, announcing that he was 
« James W. Dancey, from Birmingham, assistant-surgeon. Medical advice given gratis. 
The Act contained provisions in regard to druggists who had been in business before its 
passing, enabling them to become members of the Pharmaceutical Society I he defen¬ 
dant, 'becoming aware that he was summoned, wrote to London, and asked to be ad¬ 
mitted a member of the Society; but, fortunately, he was obliged to write the letter 
himself, which at once raised the suspicion that he was not a proper person to have the 
dispensing of prescriptions, and inquiries were at once made, which resulted in this 
prosecution. The present charge was for selling oxalic acid without the name and 
address of the seller, which was clearly proved, and Mr. Horsley, analytical chemist, 
Cheltenham, analysed the contents of the packet which had been purchased of the 
defendant, and found it to be oxalic acid. , _ , 10c 
The bench fined the defendant £1. Is., £2. 2s. for Mr. Horsleys expenses, and 12 s. 
tbe costs of the court, total £3. 15s., or one month’s hard labour. The fine not having 
been paid, the defendant went to prison. 
Sale of Strychnine. —At the Police Court, Cheltenham, on Monday, April 10th, 
Mr William Hands, chemist, was summoned, on the information of Mr. bupt. Day, 
under the 17th section of the “ Sale of Poisons Act,’’ for having sold twopennyworth 
of strychnine to a man named William Jones, without having entered, m the form 
prescribed by the Act, the address of the person to whom the poison was sold. Mr. 
E T Brydges, solicitor, appeared for the defendant. , , ... 
Mr Brydges said he thought he might save the tim# of the court by at once admit¬ 
ting that Mr Hands did not make an entry of the « address ” of the William Jones who 
was said to have purchased the poison in this case. The present proceedings were im¬ 
portant not only to Mr. Hands, but as affecting the chemists generally ; and he believed 
that when he had laid before the Bench the provisions of the Act they would be of 
opinion that they could not convict, or that, if they did, the smallest coin of the realm 
would be a sufficient penalty. The information was laid under the 1 < th section of the 
Act which made it illegal to sell any of the poisons included in schedule D, or such 
poisons as might be from time to time added to them, to any person whom the person 
selling did not know, unless he was introduced by a person whom he did know, and the 
sale was to be entered in a form supplied in schedule F. There were not the usual 
words added “ or to the like effect, ” but chemists were bound down to the precise form. 
Turning to the form referred to, and which, from the preciseness of its character, ap¬ 
peared to be equal to a statutory declaration of the Act, he pointed out that though the 
17th section required that the “name and address ” of the purchaser should be regis¬ 
tered there was no provision for the entry of the address in the form scheduled, the 
column for the name being headed “name of the purchaser,” and not “ name and aadress 
of the purchaser,” the words in the section under which the compaint was laid It 
seemed as though if Mr. Hands had inserted the address of the purchaser he would have 
been liable to a penalty for not conforming to the form of register, while he was held 
to be liable for not entering the address in conformity with the Act. He thus appeared 
to be on the horns of a dilemma, liable to penalty in either case. There had been cer¬ 
tain text-books issued for the guidance of chemists, and Mr. Brydges pointed out that 
one m the possession of his client, signed by the Secretary of the Pharmaceutical 
Society, did not call attention to the necessity of registering the address ; and he might 
state that he had referred to the registers kept by seven chemists, in only one of which 
was the address entered as required. He did not know in what way Mr. Hands had 
been selected as the subject of proceedings which should make the requirement of the 
Act on this point known, but he did think that some notice should have been given to 
