564 
BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
Mr. Justice Lush.— The statute uses both. 
counter stnctaess > ifc mi g5t include compounding and selling it across the 
Mr. Justice Barmen.—It is only a fine word like “ exhibiting.” 
J ™ tlce Lush— They do not appear to be the same terms if they mean the same 
1 ~ ne P ersori P r0liu ced a certificate in order to qualify himself, showing that he had 
een empioyed three years in compounding prescriptions, and another brought a certificate 
tliat he had been engaged in dispensing and compounding. 
Mr. Quam .—Practically I do not know that there is any difference between them. 
n J Jt S . t f'T^e statute uses both, without giving the meaning of each word. 
Mr. Qu■am. I find them used m that very Act. “ Whereas it is expedient for the safety 
ie pu ic ia persons keeping open shop for the retailing, dispensing , or compounding 
ot poisons and persons known as chemists and druggists should possess a competent prac- 
T +1 • I 10 " 6 , ge 0 their business. Both words are there used, dispensing or compounding. 
I tlnnk perhaps dispensing includes selling; but there is no doubt, my lord, that it means 
2 n( ,T actual making iip of a prescription, or it means making up the prescription, and 
g the resul J ; Whether the dispensing would include selling or not I do not know, and 
isthe distinction 1SPenSmS ° f ^ Slmple lnsredients without compounding it. Perhaps that 
Mr. Justice Lush .—What is dispensing, then ? 
Mr. Quain.—\ believe dispensing meaus making up a medicine aud selling it. Making 
up a prescription and selling it, is what is called a dispensing chemist. 
Mr. Justice Bannen.—Do^ it include selling ? The matter of usage includes the selling, 
but, 1 think, its technical meaning is making up. 
Mr. Justice Lush (reading from a dictionary). To distribute; to deal, or to apportion ; 
to give a portion. 11 
Mr. Quain. It has nothing to do with administering it. 
Afr. Justice Lush.— No; it has not. I thought it" had. I fancied it was used in the 
Apothecaries Act. . Can you say that this prussic acid formed part of the ingredients of the 
lotion in the sense m which that phrase is used ? 
Mr. Quam.— Surely. I believe it is a very common lotion for irritant skin diseases, 
liussic acid and rose-water make a very ordinary lotion. 
Mr. Justice ZwiA.—The words rather suggest to one’s mind a case where it is neutralized 
or quaiihed by some other ingredient. 
,, 9 uain ~®”°> m y lord ; that depends entirely upon a question of chemistry whe¬ 
ther it is a mere dilution or a change of character. 
M ). Justice Lush. This would evidently be a mere dilution. 
Mr. Quam.— That is the usual way, my lord. There is no chemical action in making 
up a piescnption. If there were, that would destroy the whole thing. If there were any 
chemical action in the prescription, the original thing would disappear. There would be 
something new produced entirely. These medicines are mere mixtures. They are not che¬ 
mical combinations. They are always mixtures. It is only a question of the quantity of 
the one and the quantity of the other. I am not aware that medicine ever depends for its 
action on chemical action. 
Mr. Justice Barmen. Oh, it does, Mr. Q,uain. You must not say it so; .broadly. Take 
the case of a seidlitz powder. 3 
Mr. Quain.— Oh, I am not talking about that. 
Mr. Justice Lush. This proviso might have been necessary in order'to cover medicine 
which contained a very small proportion indeed of prussic acid, so that the whole compound 
was not poisonous.. A proviso would be necessary to cover that sort of thing ; but suppose 
the thing sent out is essentially a poison, how is that protected by the proviso ? 
Lr. Quam. Whether it is essentially a poison depends entirely on the person who 
takes it. there are some persons who might take medicines which might poison another 
person. In certain classes of cases people might take a quantity of strychnine which would 
poison me or your lordship. It depends entirely on the person and the disease that the 
person is suffering under. The quantity of strychnine that a person suffering under para- 
kjsis would take would poison another person, while it would scarcely have auy effect on 
the person taking it. It depends entirely on the recipient. This is the 5th section of the 
o d Apothecaries Act, 55 Geo. III. c. 194 : “And whereas it is the duty of every person 
