566 
BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. It gets rid of the ambiguity in the phrase, “in the manner afore¬ 
said.” 
Mr. Justice Lush. —And extends it beyond apothecaries. 
Mr. Quain. les, my lord, that is the only difference. Your lordship sees that the 
statute applies to duly qualified medical practitioners, who. also dispense medicines, which, I 
suppose, applies to what are called general practitioners. These would be equally responsible 
if they sent out any of these ingredients as a medicine, just the same as this chemist, and, 
therefore, the extent to which this decision of the justices, if it be upheld, would go, would, 
I apprehend, be of the most serious description. It is a very common thing, if people are 
travelling, to have a prescription made out.in their own name, and then they go into any 
chemist s shop in the country where they may happen to be, and have it made up. 
Mr. Justice Mannen. It is very odd that the Act does not require the name and address 
of the buyer to be included in the entry. 
Mr. Quain. It does not. It says the name and address of the seller, but not the name 
and address of the buyer. The idea appears to be this. Supposing, as I said before, the 
case that occurs very commonly, of a person travelling. He has a prescription which he 
has been in the habit of using; he Comes to a town, and goes into a chemist’s shop, being 
a peifeet stranger; he hands in his prescription to be made up in the ordinary way, aud it 
contains prussic acid, or any of these ingredients which are mentioned in the first schedule; 
suiely a chemist, if he bond fide makes it up in the ordinary way as a prescription, and 
hands it over the counter to the person whose name it bears, and enters that name in his 
book, primd facie has complied with the Act of Parliament. He sells it to the person for 
whom it is intended, and that person’s name is entered in the book according to the proviso. 
Mr. Justice Lush. If this had been a lotion supplied by a medical practitioner to his 
patient directly, it would not have been within the Act. 
Mr. Quain. —Why not ? 
Mi. Justice Lush. It would not have required the word “ poison.” It would have been 
no offence ? That is your argument. 
Mr. Quain. On the contrary, I say there is no difference between medicine dispensed by 
a legally qualified practitioner and by this chemist. 
Mr. Justice Lush. I say, if this had been sold by a medical man attending Mr. Newton, 
it need not have had the word “ poison.” 
Mr. Quain. —Certainly not. 
Mr. Justice Lush.— And your argument is, that the same part of the section applies to a 
person dispensing it P 
Mi.. Quain. l iecisely. It appears to me it would be a most alarming thing, if any 
medicine happened to contain anyone of these ingredients, that it should be labelled “poison.” 
It would be rather an alarming thing than otherwise. The statute evidently means to draw 
a broad liue of demarcation between the sale of poisons proper and the sale of medicines. 
There is one of these things in Schedule (A), which, I think, most of us, in some part of 
oui lives, are very familiar with, my lord,'—tartar emetic. We know what tartar emetic is 
very well, and we know what it is taken for; and if it had “ poison ” always written on the 
outside of it, certainly a great many patients would never be induced to take it at all. Why 
taitar emetic should be put into this schedule at all, I do not know; it is a thing we take 
every day of our lives. As your lordship knows, it is merely tartarized antimony, that is 
taken internally. But according to this, the moment you get what is commonly called an 
emetic, it is to be.labelled poison. It is perfectly plain that never could have been in¬ 
tended. Theie is another article here, aconite, which is well known as a homoeopathic 
medicine, which is constantly taken nowadays. I never heard that there was any necessity, 
when you take it as a medicine, that it should be labelled “ poison.” And so i might go 
on to any extent. It is plain what the statute meant, surely ; when you sell ]} 0 \$qx\^ quoad 
poison, jou shall label it as such, but not when you make up a prescription in the ordinary 
course of business as a mediciue, and sell it as a medicine, professing to sell it as a medicinJ, 
most certainly, in the most perfect good faith, as in this case, having put on it, as he did 
here, lor external application only. Caution.” That is the way these things are labelled 
now, and that would indicate certainly that it was not to be taken internally. Ilaviim, 
theiefore, complied with all the provisions of the Act of Parliament, I submit that the 
conviction is quite wrong, and that it would lead to very serious consequences if it were 
right. I do not know how the business of a chemist and druggist could be carried on, if 
