488 
OLDHAM COUNTY COURT. 
Now, if we admit that the air in rising leaves behind it the floating particles, it 
follows that such an accumulation of these particles must occur that there 
ought to be no difficulty in demonstrating their existence in unusual number in 
the air coming up to take the place of that removed by rarefaction. 
OLDHAM COUNTY COURT. 
Friday , Dec. 24. 
(Before C. Temple, Esq., Judge.) 
The Pharmaceutical Society v. Marwood. 
A case of some interest and novelty came on for hearing, in which “ the Pharma¬ 
ceutical Society of Great Britain, by Elias Bremridge, their secretary, by the authority 
of the Council of the said Society, sought to impose a penalty of £5 upon James Mar- 
wood, medical botanist, Rochdale Road. The sum named was set forth in the plaint as 
the “amount of penalty incurred by the plaintiff for, prior to the date hereof, taking, 
using, or exhibiting the name of ‘registered chemist and druggist,’ contrary to the pro¬ 
visions of the 15th section of the Pharmacy Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 121).” 
Mr. Flux , of the firm of Flux , Argles , and Rawlins , London, appeared in support of 
the summons. 
Mr. C. E. Blackburne appeared for'the defendant. 
In opening the case, Mr. Flux said it was expressly brought under the jurisdiction of 
this Court, for under the Chemists’ Act penalties were made recoverable in the same 
manner as under the Pharmacy Act, which appeared in an earlier part of the book 
before his Honour. 
Iiis Honour. —What is the penalty ? c 
Mr. Flux.— Five pounds, which is sued for in the manner pointed out by the statutes, 
and it has been incurred under the statute now before your Honour. 
His Honour. —It would have been much more satisfactory for me, if it is on a question 
of general law, if it had been sued for in one of the Superior Courts. 
Mr. Flux. —There are precedents as respects penalties under the Pharmacy Act, and 
I have brought one with me. This statute expressly throws me on the County Court, 
and I cannot go to a higher court. 
His Honour.— Where is the clause of the statute you refer to ? 
Mr. Flux. —Clause 15 1 will point your Honour to. 
His Honour (reading).—“From and after the 31st December, 1868, any person who 
shall sell or keep an open shop for the retailing, dispensing, or compounding poisons, or 
who shall take, use, or exhibit the name or title of chemist and druggist, or chemist, or 
druggist, not being a registered pharmaceutical chemist or chemist and druggist, or who 
shall take, use, or exhibit the name or title, pharmaceutical chemist, pharmaceutist, or 
pharmacist, not being a pharmaceutical chemist . . . shall, for every such offence, be 
liable to pay a penalty or sum of £5, and the same may be sued for, recovered, and 
dealt with in the manner provided by the Pharmacy Act for the recovery of penalties 
under that Act.” 
Mr. Flux. —Now, earlier on in that book you will (find the Pharmacy Act. At page 
13 you will find sect. 12, which says, “such penalty may be recovered in the name and 
by the authority of the Council of the said Society ... by plaint under the provisions 
of any Act in force for the more easy recovery of small debts and demands.” That, I 
submit, places the question of jurisdiction very clear before your Honour. 
His Honour. —In point of fact, has there been any conviction under the Chemists’ 
Act ? 
Mr. Flux.— Not under the Chemists’ Act, but under the Pharmacy Act penalties 
have been recovered in the County Courts. I have with me the proceedings in one 
case. 
His Honour. —Well, but has that decision, or the assumption of that jurisdiction, 
been recognized by the Courts above? Was it ever appealed against or objected to ? 
