571 
BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
form filled up, which is given in the schedule. There the name and surname of the pur¬ 
chaser are given, the place where it is bought, and he has actually to sign it. And where, in 
the first part of the clause, the signature is required, aud in the latter part I should submit 
that the words, “ sold or delivered,” mean the person to whom the sale is actually made, or 
the person to whom it is actually delivered. The result is, that when the purchaser, such 
as Ansell Johnson, is found in a state of collapse from having drunk prussic acid— 
Mr. Quam. —Oh, no. I am told he attempted to eut his throat; he did not take the 
medicine at all. My learned friend has got the bottle, and I am told it is in the same state 
now as when it was dispensed. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —It seems to have been a horrible tale altogether. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —Have you got the prescription ? it is made part of the case. 
. Mr. Quain. —I believe my friend Mr. Smith has the bottle, my lord ; I have not got 
either. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. Again I say, this book ought to be kept for this particular purpose. 
There can be no doubt that if inquiry had to be made, assuming some person were found in 
the street in a state of collapse from having drunk prussic acid and rose-water, and it was 
desired to find at wdiat chemist’s the poison had been purchased, it would be useless to go to 
a chemist m a large way of business, and ask him to wade through the whole of the entries 
in his ordinary prescription-book, because the number of items probably would be so great, 
that there would be considerable difficulty in saying what person was intended. 
Mr. Justice Lush. —lou do not mean to say that he is to have a separate book for every 
separate article ? 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —No; but for the poisonous ones. There is no doubt he must have 
one book for the poisons, pure and simple. 
Mr. Justice Ilannen. — Was there not a number put upon this prescription? 
Mr. Lumley Smith. — I am afraid of travelling out of the case. 
Mr. Justice Ilannen. —It is part of the case. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —He indexed the entry. 
Mr. Justice Ilannen. —You cannot make an index without some reference to the thing 
indexed, and therefore there would be some easy means of ascertaining what this prescription 
was. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —If the name was known.; but the index is merely to the name and 
the page in the book. Now the Act of Parliament says it must be a book kept for the pur¬ 
pose. The question is, whether it means for that purpose only, or whether it is the book in 
which he enters all his prescriptions. The Act of Parliament has not said “for that pur¬ 
pose only; ” but certainly, as far as the practical utility of the thing goes, it would be much 
more easy to trace a thing of this sort if it were in a book in which poisons only were 
entered, instead of being entered with all other prescriptions. However, upon this part of 
the case, I have to submit very strongly that the name that ought to have been in was the 
name of Ansell Johnson, and not the name of Mrs. Newton. Now, with respect to the 
second case, no doubt a mitigated penalty has been imposed for each offence. He has been 
convicted of two different infractions of the law. Of course if the decision of this Court is, 
that the conviction is wrong in either case, and that this was not a poison, it is unnecessary 
to go at all into the question of the second case; for assuming that this is a medicine, as¬ 
suming that he w r as not bound to enter the name of the person to whom it was sold, the 
question is, whether lie can be convicted also for having sold without labelling it “ poison.” 
Mr. Justice Lush. —The language does not seem to suggest to me that he can be liable 
to a double penalty for the same act. It says, “ If any person shall sell poison otherwise 
than as herein provided, he shall for the first offence forfeit so much, and for the second, 
or any subsequent offence, so much. No matter how far he deviated from the Act, what 
the statute does is, to render him liable to one penalty for each act. You can hardly find 
words here to justify for accumulated penalty for each variation from the Act. 
Mr. Lumley Smith. —Then the question may arise, and in that respect it may be impor¬ 
tant that it should be considered that the second case was disposed of under the old Act, 
because there it is, “labelled in the manner aforesaid,” which is an ambiguous phrase. It 
may mean simply by labelling the bottle with the name and address of the seller, or it may 
mean labelling it with the word “ poison.” 
Mr. Justice Lush. —It is clear it docs not mean that. It is “labelled” in the manner 
aforesaid, with the name and address of the seller 
2p2 
