574 
BERRY V. HENDERSON. 
the circumstances, taking the case as if it stood as the finding of the magistiatcs, in point 
of fact, that this gentleman did really believe that when he was dispensing this prescription 
he was making up a prescription which had been actually given by a medical man to Mrs. 
Newton for a lotion ; as it purported to be upon that hypothesis, I am of opinion, that he 
has brought himself within the proviso. The first part, the enacting part, applies to the 
sale of poisons, and amongst the enumerated poisons is prussic acid. I observe, that all of 
them seem to allude to poisons as being sold in their simple state, or in one form of prepa¬ 
ration. It does not appear to contemplate in any of them their being mixed up with any 
other ingredients; it must be pure and simple. Then comes the proviso. Taking the 
general sweeping words of the enactment, they would have prohibited any medical man 
perhaps dispensing a prescription that contained a poison. It was supposed that might be 
so. in all probability; and then comes the proviso, which says, that nothing in the Act con¬ 
tained shall “ apply to any medicine supplied by a legally qualified apothecary to his patient, 
nor apply to any article when forming part of the ingredients of any medicine dispensed by 
a person*registered under this Act.” Is this a medicine ? That is not disputed. The word 
“ medicine ” is comprehensive enough to embrace everything which is to be applied medici¬ 
nally, whether externally or internally. According to the prescription, this was intended 
to be used as a lotion, and the case stands as a fact, that the prescription was one which 
might be proper for a lotion. The proviso seems to put upon the same footing, in this re¬ 
spect, a duly qualified medical man, supplying this thing to his patient, and a registered 
Chemist and Druggist dispensing such a thing. If a duly qualified medical man had actu¬ 
ally supplied, delivered himself, to his patient this compound of prussic acid and rose-water 
as a lotion, then he would be protected under the first part of that proviso. That being so, 
I think, the same rules apply to a registered Chemist and Druggist making up that com¬ 
pound from a prescription, which, as I understand, is the principle involved, the making 
up something that is prescribed, and making it with directions how it is to be used. Then, 
did this prussic acid form part of the ingredients of a medicine dispensed by a duly regis¬ 
tered person ? It struck me, on first reading it, that the word applied only to cases where 
the poisonous article is one of several ingredients, where perhaps its poisonous qualities are 
qualified in a more or less degree by the other ingredients ; but then, I think, it would be 
very difficult to applv the Act by that interpretation of it. "W e cannot entei into the con¬ 
sideration whether the other ingredients are fewer or greater in number, or in w r hat pro¬ 
portion they may be. This is of itself a compound, and is a medicine which might have 
been ordered by a medical man to be used as a lotion, then, has h(^complied with the 
remaining part of the section, which requires that the medicine should be labelled in the 
manner aforesaid,” by which I understand, distinctly and legiblj with the name and addiess 
of the seller, as state*d in the section; and that the ingredients thereof be entered, with the 
name of the person to whom it is sold or delivered, in a book to be kept by the seller for 
that purpose ? It is found that the ingredients were entered in what he called his prescrip¬ 
tion-book, which, I think, satisfies the requirements of the Act, as a book kept for that 
purpose, a book kept for entering such medicines or prescriptions. Then he has entered, 
as the person to whom it was sold, Mrs. Newton. The statute, by saying the name of the 
person to whom it was sold, or for whom it w r as delivered, has, I think, meant to give him 
the option of putting dow r n the name of the person to whom he actually gave it over the 
counter, or the name of the person whose agent that person w'as for whose use it w r as in¬ 
tended.’ Taking the fact to be found, that he reasonably believed that this was duly pre¬ 
scribed for Mrs" Newton, Mrs. Newton must be taken to be the person to whom hesold it, 
and, therefore, he complied with the provisions of the Act. lor these reasons, I think, the 
conviction is wrong. 
Mr. Justice Ilannen.—l am of the same opinion. I think we are able to pronounce our 
judgment upon the assumption which has been made, that it is to be taken that the magis¬ 
trates would have found that the chemist in this case acted bond fide , believing that Mrs. 
Newton was the person to whom the medicine was sold. "Without that, I shouul ha\c 
thought it necessary that there should be a further inquiry, but upon that assumption I 
think we should be putting a construction upon the Act which will not lead to the dangerous 
consequences which Mr. Lumley Smith has suggested, because it will only be where a che¬ 
mist establishes that he has entered the name of the person to whom he delivers it, or to the 
person to whom it shall be found he has reasonably believed he had sold it, that he brings 
himself within the terms of this proviso. 
