TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL SOCIETY. 591 
The following communication from the Society’s Solicitors was read, and ordered to 
be entered on the minutes:— 
Elias Bremridge, Esq. 1, East India Avenue, E.C. 
Dear Sir, Feb* 14, 1870. 
Pharmaceutical Society v. Marwood* 
On the hearing of this case on Friday, the judge (with evident reluctance) gave a ver¬ 
dict for the plaintiffs; and acting upon the authority given at our request, we informed 
the judge that we were authorized not to ask for costs, whereupon he said that he would 
not give costs in the case. We, however, might have rejoined that the Pharmacy Act 
was compulsory upon him to give the costs if required; and as to this, we point toNause 
13 of the Pharmacy Act, 1852, as containing words as follows:—“ In every such action 
or proceeding the "party who shall prevail shall recover his full costs of suit or of such 
other proceedings.” 
We send herewith copy of the opinion of the Attorney-General and Mr. Edward Bul¬ 
lock, of the Norfolk Circuit, which was read by us in this case. 
Berry v. Henderson , 1-2.* 
The Court of Queen’s Bench was to-day constituted of Mr. Justice Lush and Mr. Jus¬ 
tice Hannen, before whom these appeals were fully argued with the result that Mr. 
Lush delivered a judgment expounding the law exactly as contended for by the Phar¬ 
maceutical Society, and that Mr. Justice Hannen concurred, so that both appeals were 
successful, and the convictions were quashed. 
Seeing that the case resulted in a judicial and satisfactory exposition of the law, we, 
with your sanction, instructed counsel not to ask for costs against the respondent. 
The Society v. M l Call.* 
We enclose a memorandum of the proceedings in the County Court in M'Call s case, 
in a shape which may be used as our Report to Council or otherwise, as you think best. 
We are, dear Sir, 
Yours truly, 
Flux, Argles, and Rawlins. 
EXAMINATIONS IN LONDON. 
February ‘Nith, 1870. 
Present—Messrs. Bird, Cai'teighe, Cracknell, Darby, Davenport, Deane, Edwards, Evans, 
Gale, Garle, Haselden, Ince, and Southall. 
MODIFIED EXAMINATION. 
Candidates presented themselves for examination; the following, twenty-five 
Thirty-nine 
passed, and were duly registered as 
CHEMISTS 
Basker, John Perkin, Grantham. 
Bathe, Robert Samuel, St. Alban’s. 
Charlesworth, Charles Edward, Chorley. 
Collett, Charles Benjamin, London. 
Collins, James, Leeds. 
Cooper, Thomas, London. 
Draper, Richard, Newark-on-Trent. 
Edwards, James Joseph, Pontypool. 
Edwards, Thomas Oliver, Newtown. 
Evans, Joseph James, Kidderminster. 
Glossop, George Edward, Bristol. 
Goddard, Francis, Lambeth. 
Highley, William, Todmorden. 
* See ‘ Pharmaceutical Journal 
AND DRUGGISTS. 
Hughes, Thomas, Denbigh. 
Huntley, Henry Edwin, London. 
Key, Hobson, Beverley. 
Learoyd, Edwardus Radley, Sheffield. 
Nickols, Arthur, Crewkerne. 
Oldham, James, London. 
Powley, John Holliday, Liverpool. 
Purnell, Henry Albert, Hereford. 
Radclyffe, R. Caygill Tom, Birmingham. 
Rainforth, Richard, Ripon. 
Rogers, Henry Frost, West Ham. 
Smith, Peter, Chesterfield. 
and Transactions,’ pp. 653-575. 
