170 prosecutions under the pharmacy act, 1868. 
there are besides an unlimited number of establishments where drugs are sold, 
generally in connection with spices and grocery. Moreover, the apothecary, or 
pharmaceutist, hardly deals at all in extraneous articles, and to only a limited 
extent supplies patent or proprietary medicines. Among the fifty pharmaceu¬ 
tists of Vienna there are none who have very extensive businesses, four appear¬ 
ing to be the maximum number of assistants kept, and probably two. the 
Average. The recognized function of the apothecary, or pharmaceutist, is to 
dispense the medicines prescribed by the physician. In doing this he is re¬ 
quired to observe certain regulations which are imposed by the law, and 
enforced under medical supervision. But, on the other hand, he is protected 
from undue competition, which enables him to confine himself to the legitimate 
objects of his profession. He takes the position of a professional man, and to 
this position his education and qualifications fully entitle him. In this respect 
he has probably progressed with the times, and hence the impatience with 
which he now submits to the control he so bitterly complains of. 
After a long struggle, the pharmaceutists of Great Britain have succeeded in 
establishing their claim to recognition as a separate branch of the medical pro¬ 
fession, and of securing to themselves an independent position, in which they 
are entrusted with the management of their own affairs, and the cariyiug out 
of the laws relating to the practice of pharmacy } and if by any means they can 
assist their brethren abroad in gaining the same rights and privileges, we feel 
assured they will most heartily do so. 
PROSECUTIONS UNDER THE PHARMACY ACT, 1868. 
Several persons have already been fined for infringements of the law re¬ 
lating to the sale of poisons ; some for selling without haring secured for 
themselves by registration the proper authority for doing so, others for selling 
without observing the prescribed regulations set forth in section 17. 
In one case William Crussell, a grocer, was fined respectively under three 
distinct charges, in sums which, together with the costs, amounted in the ag- 
gregate to upwards of ten pounds. As far as the report goes, the proceed¬ 
ings in this case were instituted by the police, and Crussell had previously 
appeared before the magistrates on a similar charge. There was no attempt 
at defence, save the extraordinary assertion that the articles sold were not 
what they professed to be, but only “ substitutes.” “ Dummies, my dear boy ! 
all dummies, except the leeches ! seems to be the rule of the village drug- 
sellers, and perhaps this substitution may be an element of safety. . 
For a sale of oxalic acid at Gloucester by James Dancey a conviction was 
obtained, and the fine imposed not being paid, the defendant appears to have 
been sent to prison for a month’s hard labour. In this case the pioceedmgs 
were taken under section 17, but Dancey’s name not appearing on the register 
rendered the sale itself illegal. , . . 
We shall doubtless hear more of the Worthing conviction when the courts 
open, as Mr. Berry has taken the necessary steps to appeal from the decision of 
the magistrates to the Court of Queen’s Bench. V r e look anxiously for the 
result, feeling that the points involved are of the utmost importance to every 
dispensing chemist in the kingdom 5 but, while we look anxiously, we aie 
confident Mr. Berry has not infringed the provisions of the Act; and however 
ambiguous the language of 1868 may have been, the 3rd section of the Amend¬ 
ment Act, which was in operation before the charge was laid in this case, 
completely protects him. _ . 
Another prosecution reported in our Journal of last month, m which further 
consideration was deferred by the magistrates, has since been decided in favour 
