BERRY V. HF^DERSON. 569 
<c ,medicine” is used when given by theq ualified practitioner as a lotion to be used. The mc- 
<1 icine supplied is used. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —So it is in the other case: “ When forming part of any medicine 
dispensed by a person registered under this Act.” 
Mr. Lumley Smith.— Of course it comes to this, that if the word medicine applies to a 
lotion as well as to medicine for internal use, of course it must be interpreted in the same 
way, both for an apothecary and for a person who is dispensing it as a chemist. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —Do you contend that the word medicine does not embrace lotions P 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —I feel a difficulty about it, because the word medicine does mean any¬ 
thing that heals or cures. 
Mr. Justice Lush —Externally or internally? 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —Of course. There is that difficulty; but I cannot help thinking 
that when that Act was drawn, it applied to medicines which used to be poisons because 
other ingredients w r ere mixed with them. 
Mr. Quain. —A thing may be poisonous externally. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —Something may turn on that word “ dispense,” because in the 
preamble of the Act it speaks of the retail dispensing or compounding poisons. Now sell¬ 
ing would correspond with retailing, and dispensing probably would mean supplying and ad¬ 
ministering, and compounding would mean the mere mixing. Your lordship knows that in 
public hospitals there are regular dispensers, who have actually to mix and supply the me¬ 
dicines. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —And label them with the directions how they are to be used. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —This section does not extend protection to any chemist who is re¬ 
tailing, dispensing, or compounding. It confines it to the word “ dispensing.” And that 
would look as if it were to be confined to the case in which he was acting simply, as making 
up a prescription. And I should submit, with respect to this prescription, it lies on him 
to show in fact that this was a medicine. The case merely finds that this mixture might 
be used as a lotion. It is for him to bring himself within this proviso. He ought to have 
produced proof that this Mrs. Newton was an existing person. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —Must we not take it here that it was his hond-fide belief that this 
was a prescription for a lotion for Mrs. Newton ? 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —I do not think hond-fide belief applies to a case of this sort, and 
for this reason : he is liable to this penalty if the mixture is made up or sold by his appren¬ 
tice or servant. It is not a case in which hond-fide belief has anything to do with the 
matter, as I submit. The thing that is forbidden is allowing poisons to go at large, and to 
be obtained by persons who might make an improper use of them. I submit that that 
clause which renders him responsible for articles supplied in his shop by his apprentice or 
servant would rather go to show that it is not a case in which he would be relieved by his 
hond-fide belief. We show that he has sold a poison, and he has to bring himself according 
to the ordinary rule within the exception ; and to show that if he has sold a poison he is not 
to be convicted in this penalty because he comes within the exemption. Therefore it is for 
him to show that there was a Mrs. Newton, and that this prescription, about which there is 
some mystery,—for it is not found by the magistrates either way whether “ R. M. L.” was 
really the signature of a physician or not; the whole thing is left in the dark ; they merely 
find that there is a physician who has these initials,—it is, I say, for him to bring himself 
within that exemption, and to show affirmatively that this was a prescription for a real Mrs. 
Newton. And it would seem that if this had been a real prescription, that the chemist 
would have had very little difficulty in proving that. I submit that there is no hardship on 
the appellant in saying that he ought to prove affirmatively that there did exist such a per¬ 
son as Mrs. Newton, because he has the remedy in his own hands. When a prescription of 
this kind is brought into his shop by a person who is a perfect stranger, he can shelter him¬ 
self by saying, “ This is a case in which I must label it in the way in which it is prescribed 
by the Act of Parliament—in which I have a right to say you must be introduced to me.” 
Mr. Justice Ilannen. —The proviso does not require that, if it were a medicine. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —Quite so, my lord, if it is a medicine. But I say it is not enough to 
show that it might be a medicine; he ought to go further and prove that it was a medicine, be¬ 
cause just as prussic acid alone, undiluted, might be medicine, (if, diluted, prussic acid would 
be fit as a lotion, why should not prussic acid itself be fit for a lotion?) and in that case the 
Act of Parliament would be done away with. Aconite itself is used as a medicine in the 
yol. xi. 2 r 
