January 25, 1973,J 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
595 
as a retailer of drugs in the premises known as the Gars- 
cube Old Apothecaries’ Hall, 142, Garscube Road, Glas¬ 
gow. The complaint set forth that the respondent had 
contravened the Pharmacy Act, 1868, and particularly 
Section 15 thereof, in so far as, not being a duly 
registered Pharmaceutical Chemist or Chemist and 
Druggist under the said Act, he did, in the month of 
November last, keep open shop for the retailing, dis¬ 
pensing, or compounding poisons within the meaning of 
the said Act; and make two sales, which were specified, 
the one of laudanum and the other of oxalic acid, where¬ 
by he incurred a penalty of £5 for each of these contra¬ 
ventions. The penalties incurred were restricted in the 
complaint to a sum of £5 with expenses. 
At the first diet of compearance Mr. Lucas appeared 
for the respondent, and stated, as preliminary objections, 
(1) that the complainers had not set forth any sufficient 
title to sue; and (2) that the Act of 1868 did not apply 
to Scotland. 
Mr. Gill, who appeared for the complaincrs, referred 
the Sheriff to the loth Section of the Act, which provides 
that the penalties thereby imposed may be sued for in 
the manner provided by the Pharmacy Act of 1852, and 
he read Section 12 of that Act, which lays the duty of 
recovering penalties on the Pharmaceutical Society, and 
provides for the mode to be followed in Scotland for the 
recovery of penalties, and he maintained that the com¬ 
plaint was entirely in conformity with the provisions of 
the Act. The Sheriff held that the Act undoubtedly 
.applied to Scotland, and that the complaint was in 
proper form, and he accordingly repelled the objections. 
The respondent was then called upon to plead, when he 
recorded a plea of “not guilty,” and the diet was ad¬ 
journed to this date for the purpose of leading proof. 
To-day, as at the former diet, the Society was repre¬ 
sented by Air. Gill, and the respondent by Mr. Lucas. 
The respondent having stated that he adhered to his 
former plea of not guilty, the following proof was ad¬ 
duced : — 
William Logan, house-factor, Glasgow, gave evidence 
to the effect that the respondent had been tenant of the 
shop, No. 142, Garscube Road, since Whitsunday, 1870. 
It was the duty of the witness, as factor for the pro¬ 
perty, to fill up the returns required by the assessor for 
the valuation roll, and in the return for the current year 
he had inserted the respondent’s name as tenant. Dr. 
Lawrie was the tenant of the shop prior to Whitsunday, 
1870, and some time previous to that term he stated to 
witness that he had transferred the business to the re¬ 
spondent, and requested the witness to enter in his books 
the name of the respondent as tenant, and witness did 
so, on the condition that Dr. Lawrie should remain 
hound for payment of the rent, as the respondent’s 
surety, which was agreed to by Dr. Lawrie. The wit¬ 
ness understood that Dr. Lawrie was in the practice, of 
attending daily at the shop for the purpose of meeting 
with patients. He could not say whether the name of 
any person was exhibited in the shop or over the door. 
There was on the signboard “ Old Apothecaries’ Hall.” 
Peter Scott said that on 12th November last he en¬ 
tered the shop, No. 142, Garscube Road, and asked for 
oxalic acid. He received and paid for a packet which he 
had sealed on the same day, and had retained in his 
possession ever since. He handed it to the judge. The 
label on the packet bore the name of the respondent as 
the seller. 
James Angus said that on the 12th of November last 
he entered the respondent’s shop and asked for twopence 
worth of laudanum. He received and paid for a bottle 
with its contents, which he now produced. He had 
■sealed the bottle, and it had not been out of his posses¬ 
sion since. The label on the bottle bore the name of 
the respondent as the seller. 
Mr. Lucas admitted that the articles sold to the two 
preceding witnesses were truly oxalic acid and laudanum, 
which were poisons within the meaning of the Act, and 
that the respondent’s name did not appear in the Regis¬ 
ter of pharmaceutical chemists and chemists and drug¬ 
gists. This concluded the complainers’ proof, and the 
following evidence was led for the respondent:— 
William L. Wilson, the respondent, stated that he 
had been in business as a chemist and druggist for more 
than eight years. Previous to the passing of the Phar¬ 
macy Act of 1868, he was as much in business as in No¬ 
vember last. Some years ago he had entered into an 
agreement with Dr. Lawrie, whereby he was to receive 
a share of the profits of the business carried on at 142, 
Garscube Road. Dr. Lawrie was the former tenant of 
the shop. All goods purchased for the shop were 
bought and invoiced in Dr. Lawrie’s name, and he pro¬ 
duced a number of invoices, all of which were made 
out in the name of Dr. Lawrie. 
In cross-examination the witness admitted that he had 
been tenant of the shop since 1870, and that one year 
he had put his name in the Glasgow Post Office Direc¬ 
tory as chemist and druggist at the shop in question. 
The labels used in the shop all bore his name. The only 
name above the door was “ Garscube Old Apothecaries’ 
Hall.” The arrangement with Dr. Lawrie was that 
Dr. Lawrie should get the whole profits derived from the 
sale of poisons, and that witness should have a share of the 
profits on ’prescriptions and the whole profits on per¬ 
fumery. The arrangement was verbal; it was not in 
writing. Dr. Lawrie was in use to call at the shop 
twice a day, when he prepared prescriptions and sold 
articles if witness was busy. 
Dr. James Lawrie, 191, St. George’s Read, stated that 
he was a qualified medical practitioner and had been 
thirteen years in practice. For eight years he had been 
tenant of the Old Drug Hall in Garscube Road. In the 
year 1870 witness wished to give up the sale of drugs, 
and arranged with respondent that he should become a 
partner with him, taking the sale of the general drugs 
and chemicals, while witness should take all responsi¬ 
bility in point of law. There was no written agreement. 
Witness got the whole profits derived from the poisons 
sold in the shop and a share of profits on prescriptions. 
The respondent received the whole profits on the sale of 
other drugs and perfumery, which formed the main part 
of the business. Witness regarded himself as the seller 
of all poisons sold in the shop, and held himself respon¬ 
sible under the Pharmacy Act. 
In cross-examination witness stated that he had asked 
the factor of the premises to accept the respondent as 
his tenant, and that the respondent’s name was on the 
labels used in the shop. He repeated the terms of his 
arrangement with the respondent, and said tliat in 
making that arrangement he had in view the require¬ 
ments of the Pharmacy Act. He recommended such 
patients as he visited and prescribed for at their own 
homes to take their prescriptions to the respondent’s 
shop ; and he said it was not uncommon for medical men 
to get a percentage of the profit on their prescriptions. 
This concluded the proof. 
Mr. Gill, in addressing the Sheriff, pointed out that 
the sales of articles in question had been proved, and 
that these articles were admitted to be poisons. It had 
also been proved that the respondent wa3 tenant of the 
shop, and was not on the Register, and, therefore, could 
not sell poisons without contravening the Act of P arlia- 
ment. That the respondent and not Dr. Lawrie was the 
seller of the poisons libelled was proved by the fact that 
the labels bore the name of the respondent as the seller. 
That the arrangement said to have been made between 
Dr. Lawrie aud the respondent was only an attempt to 
evade the provisions of the Act, as there could be no 
doubt that the shop belonged to the respondent, and was 
kept open by him for the sale of poisons. 
Mr. Lucas, on behalf of the respondent, maintained 
that his client was entitled to a judgment of absolvitor 
on the grounds (1) that under the Act persons who had 
been in business as chemists and druggists before it be- 
