March 1G, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
759 
pose for which such admixture would, according- to the 
representation of the purchaser, render it unfit, such 
arsenic may he sold without such admixture. 
15. Persons registered under the “Medical Practi¬ 
tioners Registration Act, 1869,” shall not he registered 
under this Act. 
16. The provisions of the “ Adulteration of Food Act, 
1866,” shall extend to all articles usually taken or sold 
as medicines. 
SCHEDULES. 
First Schedule, 
tart i. 
Arsenic and its preparations. 
Prussic Acid. 
Cyanides of Potassium and all metallic Cyanides. 
Strychnine and all poisonous vegetable Alkaloids and 
their Salts. 
Aconite and its preparations. 
Emetic Tartar. 
Corrosive Sublimate. 
Cantharides. 
Savin and its Oil. 
Ergot of Rye and its preparations. 
Laudanum. 
Opium. 
PART II. 
Oxalic Acid. 
Chloroform. 
Belladonna and its preparations. 
Essential Oil of Almonds (unless deprived of its Prussic 
Acid). 
All preparations of Opium or of Poppies. 
Preparations of Corrosive Sublimate. 
Preparations of Morphine. 
Red Oxide of Mercury (commonly known as Red 
Precipitate of Mercury). 
Ammoniated Mercury (commonly known as White 
Precipitate of Mercury). 
Every compound containing any of the poisons men¬ 
tioned in this schedule when prepared or sold for the 
destruction of vermin. 
The tincture and all vesicating liquid preparations of 
Cantharides. 
Second Schedule. 
Name. 
Residence. 
A. B. 
Street. 
C. D. 
Street. 
Third Schedule. 
Date. 
Name and 
Address of 
Purchaser. 
Name and 
Quantity of 
j Poison sold. 
Purpose for 
which it is 
required. 
Signature of 
Purchaser. 
1 Signature of 
Person in¬ 
troducing 
Purchaser. 
Dourle Infringement of the Pharmacy Act. 
At the Ruthin petty sessions, on Monday, March 4th, 
Thomas William Jones, grocer, etc., Gyffliog, was sum¬ 
moned by Mr. Bancroft, county analyst and local secre¬ 
tary to the Pharmaceutical Society, for selling poison, 
to wit, a preparation of laudanum, without labelling 
such bottle with the word poison, and also attaching the 
name and address of the seller. 
Mr. Louis, for the prosecution, stated that some time 
ago a list of persons selling poisons in country villages 
contrary to the law was furnished to the Society in Lon¬ 
don, and the whole of such persons had been cautioned 
against the practice. It was, however, continued, and 
the Society had thought it necessary to bring the pre¬ 
sent proceedings. He then pointed out to the Bench 
the section of the Act under which he was proceeding, 
after which he called the following witnesses :— 
Police-constable George Hughes said he went to the 
defendant’s shop, on the 8th of January, 1872, and saw 
a boy there. The defendant is a grocer, draper and 
general dealer. The boy was about fourteen years old, 
and there was no one else in the shop. He asked the 
boy for half an ounce of laudanum. The boy put the 
stuff in the bottle, and handed it to witness. The label 
on the bottle was “tincture of opia.” The boy put no 
label on the small bottle he handed to him, nor any 
name upon it. Witness paid twopence for it. The boy, 
in handing him the bottle, asked him what it was for, 
and he said for a horse that was bad. The boy never 
asked him until he handed him the bottle what the 
laudanum was for. 
A magistrate asked if laudanum was such a poison as 
was named in the Act. 
Mr. Louis pointed out that the Act expressly stated 
any preparation of opium. 
Mr. Bancroft said he was county analyst and local 
secretary to the Pharmaceutical Society. The police, 
some time ago, handed him a list of all the shopkeepers 
in the district who retailed poisons, and that list he for¬ 
warded to the Society in London. Since then notices 
had been served upon the shopkeepers, cautioning them 
against the practice. The bottle produced was handed 
to him in the same state as it now appeared by the last 
witness. He had analysed the contents, and found them 
to be a preparation of opium, and poison. The bottle 
was without label or address. 
Police-constable John Hughes said he visited the de¬ 
fendant’s shop on the 4th of February, 1871, saw him, 
and asked him if he sold laudanum, and he said no. 
Defendant wrote for witness the names of all the drugs 
he sold upon a piece of paper. He said that he never 
sold laudanum, and he did not include it in the list he 
wrote. 
Mr. Louis said that they had to proceed against the 
defendant upon another charge, for keeping open his 
shop for the sale of poison contrary to law, he not being 
a duly qualified chemist and druggist. 
Mr. Bancroft handed in a register of all the qualified 
chemists, in which the name of the defendant did not 
appear. 
The defendant admitted that he was not registered 
and that he had sold laudanum. 
After some discussion between the Bench and Mr. 
Louis, as to the necessity of proceeding with the second 
case, the evidence was taken, which was similar to that 
given in the previous case. 
The Bench, after some consideration, inflicted a fine 
of 20s. and costs in the first case, and 6d. without costs 
in the second case. 
Griffith Edwards, shopkeeper, was also summoned by 
Mr. Bancroft for selling, on the 8th day of January, a 
quantity of laudanum without affixing to the bottle a 
label stating that it was poison, or a label stating the 
name and address of the seller; he w r as also further 
charged with keeping his shop open for the sale of poi¬ 
sons contrary to the law, he not being a registered che¬ 
mist according to the recent Act of Parliament. De¬ 
fendant admitted that his wife had sold the poison, but 
said that he was not in the habit of selling poisons. He 
had taken the stock of the person who preceded him in 
business, and amongst it was a small quantity of lauda¬ 
num, which was kept locked up in a cupboard in the 
house, and he would not have sold the quantity in ques- 
