BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
559 
The Judge .—They might depend on it I will give no costs if I can avoid it. I give 
judgment against the defendant, declaring him liable to the penalty of £5. 
BERRY v. HENDERSON. 
Ik the Queen’s Bench, before Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Justice Hannen. 
Mr. Quain, Q.C.—My lord, there are two cases and two convictions in this case, which 
run into each other to some extent, and they are subject to this question, whether there 
should be two convictions at all of this kind; whether, in fact, there can be two penalties 
arising out of one transaction. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —Are we to take both cases together ? 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —I think that will be the more convenient course. 
Mr. Quain. —I will take No. 1 first, if your lordships will allow me. The following 
facts were proved or admitted:—On the 11th day of August, 1869, one Ansell Johnson, 
being a person unknowm to the appellant, and not introduced to the appellant by any per¬ 
son known to him, came into the shop of the appellant, the appellant and his assistant being 
there, and asked to have made up a prescription which was written in pencil, and is as fol¬ 
lows. Then comes the prescription, which I need not trouble your lordships with, except 
to say that it is written in the ordinary abbreviated or dog Latin in which prescriptions 
are usually written, and it appears to be a prescription for a lotion composed of hydrocyanic 
acid and rose-water, signed “ R. M. L.,” and the words “ Mrs. Newton ” as the person for 
whom it was intended, “ August 11th, 1869.” The original of this prescription is to be taken 
to form part of this case. The meaniug of the name of Mrs. Newton in the prescription was 
that the prescription was for the use of Mrs. Newton. There is a legally-qualified medical prac¬ 
titioner having the initials “ It. M. L.” The appellant’s assistant dispensed the prescription by 
putting two drachms of hydrocyanic acid into a two-ounce bottle, and filling up the bottle with 
rose-water, according to the meaning of the prescription. The appellant made the following 
entry in his prescription-book. Tie enters the name of Mrs. Newton, and copies the pre¬ 
scription in the usual ordinary way ; and he also indexed the entry by inserting the name 
“Newton” and the page in tiie index contained in the book. The prescription book is a 
book in which the appellant enters all prescriptions he makes up. This book is to be taken to 
form part of this case. Ansell Johnson paid the appellant’s claim, and took the bottle and 
its contents away. The bottle was labelled as follows :—“ Caution. For external use; 
the lotion to be used three times a day. Mrs. Newton. H. Berry, Dispensing Chemist, 
Member of the Pharmaceutical Society, 58, Montague* Street, Worthing.” The Pharmacy 
Act, 1869, received the royal assent on the day of the alleged offence. The following points 
were raised on behalf of the appellant:—That the appellant had not sold prussic acid 
pure and simple, but a mixture or compound of prussic acid with rose-water ; that that 
mixture was a medicine, and the prussic acid sold formed an ingredient of that medicine, 
and was therefore within the exception contained in the 17th section of the Pharmacy Act, 
1868 ; that the name “Airs. Newton ” indicated the name of the person to whom the me¬ 
dicine was sold or delivered. The following points w r ere raised on behalf of the respon¬ 
dent :—That the thing sold was not a medicine, but a poison partially diluted; that the 
name, “ Mrs. Newton,” entered by the appellant was not the name of the person to whom 
the article was sold or delivered, but only the name of a person for whose use it was alleged 
to be required; that the book in which the entry w r as made was not a book kept for that 
purpose, inasmuch as it was kept for the purpose of copying therein prescriptions of all sorts. 
The magistrates adjourned for the further consideration of the matter, until the 25th August, 
1869. On the last-mentioned day they convicted the appellant ot the offence, and adjudged 
him to forfeit and pay the sum of 10.S., to be paid aud applied according to law*, and also to 
pay to the respondent the sum of £1. 1 j. for his costs. The appellant, being dissatisfied 
with the decision, duly applied to have this case stated, and entered into a recognizance, as 
required by the first-mentioned Act. The questions of law are, whether a mixture of prussic 
acid aud rose-water is a poison within the meaning of section 17 of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, 
and of Schedule A, part 1, thereto; whether a mixture of prussic acid and rose-water is a 
medicine within the meaning of section 17; whether, according to the facts, the appellant 
