BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
563 
who fetches the medicine; for, as we all know, servants are sent constantly to get- prescrip¬ 
tions made up, and when a chemist sees a prescription written by a medical man for Mrs. 
Newton or Mr. A. B., he sells it to that person, and not to the messenger who brings the 
prescription. He enters it to Mrs. Newton, and surely he complies, in the ordinary way, 
with the Act of Parliament. That is done every day, and I think your lordship may take 
almost judicial cognizance that this is the ordinary course of business in these matters. 
Mr. Justice llannen. —There is no finding on that point. 
Mr. Quain. —There is no finding, one way or the other. 
Mr. Justice Maftnen.—The 18th clause contains an objection which one must suppose the 
magistrates have found against you, “The name of Mrs. Newton, entered by the appellant, 
was’not the name of the person to whom the article was sold, but only the name of a person 
for whose use it was alleged to be required.” That was the objection. 
Mr. Quain. —Yes. 
Mr. Justice llannen. —They seem to have found it was not for her. 
Mr. Quain. —No, my lord. 
Mr. Justice llannen. —Not in terms. _ , 
Mr. Quain.— It was for the magistrates to have found it, and there is no such finding. 
All they find is this, in paragraph 11 :—“No evidence was given that there was or was not 
any such person as Mrs. Newton.” It was for them to prove their case that it was poison. 
They have to make it out to be poison. No evidence was given that there was any such 
person as Mrs. Newton. Ansell Johnson, the witness for the prosecution, refused to 
answer the two questions,—Hid he buy it for Mrs. Newton P Hid he buy it foi himse . 
Therefore there is no evidence one way or the other for whom he bought it, except fioin the 
evidence that Mrs. Newton’s name was upon the label. I say, in the absence of any evi¬ 
dence that he did buy it for himself; that would be fair evidence in the absence of any evi¬ 
dence’from which it might be inferred that it was a sale to Mrs. Newton. At all events it 
was a sale, as far as the chemist was concerned, to Mrs. Newton. He knew nobody else. 
Clearly it was not a sale to Johnson, because he did not know Johnson’s name. . He pro¬ 
fessed to sell to Mrs. Newton, there can be no doubt. There is no evidence that it was not 
a sale to Airs Newton. He professed to sell to Mrs. Newton. She was represented to him 
as the buyer, because, when a prescription is handed in with the name of Airs. Newton m 
the corner of it, or when any other name is given as that of the person tor whom the medi¬ 
cine is asked for, surely the medicine is supplied to that person. As far as the chemist was 
concerned unquestionably he was selling to Airs. Newton, and therefore he enters it, m the 
ordinary course of business, in the name of Airs. Newton as the buyer m his book, a book 
kept for that purpose. Therefore upon that point, I think, as far as this case is concerned, 
as far as the knowledge of the chemist no doubt was concerned, it was a sale .to Airs. New¬ 
ton ; and when you are recovering a penalty, your lordship knows (of course it is not neces¬ 
sary that I should cite cases in support of that proposition) his knowledge of the matter 
enters very seriously into the offence. It was represented to him that Airs. Newton was the 
person for whom it was wanted, and he sold it to her beyond all doubt, because he knew 
nobody else to sell it to. That being so, I apprehend, under the proviso, they must make 
out that it is poison within the early part of the section. The moment you get to the fact 
that it was not sold as poison, that it was sold as merely one of the ingredients of a medi¬ 
cine made up as a lotion for the purpose of being applied externally, whatever may be the 
meaning of the proviso, the contention that it was poison within the meaning of the Act 
falls to the ground. As to the good faith, there is no doubt about that. He sold it in per¬ 
fect good faith, and that he acted criminally, or even negligently, is not found m the case 
Mr. Justice llannen. —It is a poison, Air. Quain, as it is oue mentioned in the schedule, 
Mr Quain. —I am not disposed to admit that, because all I find in the schedule is prussic 
acid ' I say this is not prussic acid. I say it you dilute prussic acid with rose-water it is 
not prussic acid within the meaning of the schedule. Up to what point does it remain 
prussic acid would be a question to be nicely argued; but I rely upon the proviso, and con- 
tend that he has brought himself strictly and entirely within the proviso. I say he has done 
everything that he is required to do. to 
Mr. Justice Lush. —What is the difference between dispensing and compounding t* 
Mr. Quain. —I do not know that there is any. 
