568 
BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
is within the first part of the section of the Act of Parliament, that is, it is clearly a poison. 
There is no doubt that prussic acid is a poison, although it be diluted with water. It is a 
matter of common knowledge that rose-water and ordinary water are used equally by medical 
men as the fancy of one medical man or another dictates, or just as the mixture may be 
supposed to be more acceptable to the person who is to use it. It is distinctly found in this 
case that rose-water has no medicinal virtue at all. So far as the magistrates have found the 
facts of this case, they have found that this was merely diluted poison. The argument was 
raised before the justices that it was diluted poison, and they by their conviction have found 
that it was diluted poison. Now, my lords, that being so, I submit that the appellant 
clearly comes within the section, unless he brings himself within the proviso. Now comes 
the first question, whether it is a medicine? There may be some difficulty in maintaining 
that medicines were only intended in this Act of Parliament to apply to things for internal 
application. There is no doubt that if one goes to the etymology of the word, it applies 
equally to internal and external applications; but still I cannot help thinking that the inten¬ 
tion of the Act was, in that proviso, to apply to medicines for internal use, in which a very 
small portion of poison may be introduced, and to say that in a case of that kind, where 
there was a small amount of poison so slight as to be harmless, and so where the whole 
mixture was not poisonous, it should not be necessary to label this poison, and to take the 
name and address of the person who buys it, as if it had been actually poison. The word 
is “medicine.” Now comes the question, whether a merely diluted poison is different from 
poison undiluted ? As my learned friend said, aconite is frequently bought and sold. It is 
a good thing for applying to cure the tootache; and that again might be used undiluted; 
and, according to my learned friend, aconite might be sold over the counter, without any 
restrictions, to a person of whom the chemist was perfectly ignorant without bis being liable- 
to a penalty under this Act if wanted for the toothache. Surely, I submit, if the whole 
compound is poisonous in itself, it does not cease to be poisonous because it is a medicine. 
I submit that the notion of that section clearly was to apply to cases in which only a small 
part is a poison, so that the mixture itself becomes harmless. There is evidence ouly in the 
word ingredients. Can there be a medicine within this proviso unless it has medical ingre¬ 
dients? I should submit, it applies simply to medicines where one ingredient corrects the 
other; where from the mixture, or from the small quantity of the poison in each, the whole 
mixture is not poisonous; not medicines in which there are no ingredients. Can it be said 
that merely diluting a poison makes it into a medicine having different ingredients ? You 
see that even in the case where the word ‘‘medicine” is used. In the old Act it applied to 
any article forming part of the ingredients of a medicine. In the new Act the word 
is “ medicinebut there again it says that the ingredients are to be entered in a book, pro¬ 
vided such medicine be distinctly labelled, with the name and address of the seller, and the 
ingredients be entered in a book to be kept by the seller for that purpose. I submit that 
the intention of the legislature was simply to apply to cases where the body of the medicine 
had become harmless; where there were ingredients that corrected the effect of the poison. 
They say in cases of that kind it shall not be necessary to have an introduction to the per¬ 
son who buys, because the thing itself has ceased to be poisonous. The next question that 
arises is, whether this person has entered this medicine properly in a book ? 
Mr. Justice Lush. —What do you say, Mr. Smith? Supposing this had been given as a 
lotion by a legally-qualified practitioner to his patient ? He would have been within the pro¬ 
tection of the proviso ? 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —Probably it would if given by a legally qualified person to his 
patient. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —Then Mr. Quain’s argument is, that being found in the same sen¬ 
tence, if this would have been protected when given as a medicine by a legally qualified me¬ 
dical practitioner, it is equally protected as a medicine dispensed by a regular seller. The- 
same words are used. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. — That certainly is the contention. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —Must not you show that this would not have been protected if it had 
been administered or given by a legally qualified practitioner as a lotion to be used ; that lie 
would have been liable to a penalty if he had not affixed a label with the word “ Poison ” ? 
It says, “None of the provisions of this Act shall apply to any medicine supplied by a 
legally qualified practitioner to his patient.” 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —Then your lordship sees there is this difference. There the word 
