506 
JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELATING TO THE PHARMACY ACT. 
of any evidence to the contrary, he assumed that'Mr. Berry was acting in 
good faith, and had a right to regard Mrs. Newton, whose name appeared on 
the prescription, as in reality the purchaser; he was, therefore, not only jus¬ 
tified in entering her name in his book, but, in doing so, he satisfied the law 
in that respect. 
We happen to know that when the obligation to make such an entry was 
inserted in the 17th section, what in this trial is called the option of naming 
either the person to whom the medicine is “ sold” or “ delivered,” was ex¬ 
pressly demanded on the part of chemists by those acting on their behalf, 
therefore the judicial rendering of the language used is important. The two 
words were used to meet contingencies with which we must all be familiar. 
A messenger carries a prescription bearing no name to a chemist, not knowing 
even by whom the medicine is to be taken. In that case the messenger’s 
name, as the person receiving the medicine, was to be deemed sufficient. 
And now as to the vexed question of labelling any mixture containing an 
article named in the schedule with the name of that article and the word 
“ poison,” on which Dr. Brewer and others have dwelt so pertinaciously. 
Over and over again we have stated that such a course would be on the face 
of it absurd, and an utterance of untruth ; that the words, “ in the manner 
aforesaid, ’’ could not be construed to signify, with the words aforesaid, else 
what need to add “with the name and address of the seller ”? when those 
words would have been included, according to the view of our opponents, in 
the “ manner aforesaid .” 
Here we find the learned Judge saying :— 
“ Then has he complied with the remaining part of the section, which 
requires that the medicine should be labelled in the manner aforesaid, by 
vvhich I understand distinctly and legibly, with the name and address of the 
seller as stated in the section ?”— 
and at once declaring that Berry had complied with the legal require¬ 
ments, both as to labelling and copying the prescription, not in the poison- 
book, but in the ordinary prescription book. We believe it was quite well- 
known from the commencement that this appeal was in reality promoted by 
the Pharmaceutical Society. It could scarcely be expected that, to relieve 
himself of two fines of ten shillings each, Mr. Berry would have entered 
on an expensive litigation in the Court of Queen’s Bench. But in a ques¬ 
tion affecting, as this does, the interest and security of every chemist in 
Great Britain, it was obviously the duty of the Council to set aside so mon¬ 
strous a perversion of the intention of the Act, and obtain at once a judi¬ 
cial reading of the section, which will, doubtless, hereafter be cited as an 
authority, should similar prosecutions arise. 
JUDICIAL DECISIONS DELATING TO THE PHAEMACY ACT. 
Litigation follows legislation. Our columns for this month report several 
cases of interest to our readers, and, happily, each has terminated satisfactorily. 
First, in point of date, is the action for a penalty of £5, sued for in the Blooms¬ 
bury County Court. In that case, a person not registered as a Chemist and 
Druggist, admitted having used the title “ Chemist,” and also having sold poi¬ 
sons, and the judge received the admission, and, at the defendant’s request, 
considered the joint opinion of her Majesty’s Attorney-General and Mr. 
Bullock, which had been taken on behalf of the Society ; he then accepted the 
register as proving itself, and concluded by giving a verdict for the penalty. 
Next in order of date was the further hearing of the Oldham case, where a 
