June 29, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
1055; 
®jj t iljraniutceuftntl journal. 
SATURDAY, JUNE 29, 1872. 
Communications for this Journal, and boohs for review,etc., 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
Instructions from Members and Associates respecting the 
transmission of the Journal should be sent to Elias Brem- 
ridge, Secretary, 17, Bloomsbury Square, TV.C. 
Advertisements to Messrs. Churchill, New Burlington 
Street , London , JF. Envelopes indorsed u Fharm. Journ.” 
THE POSITION OF WIDOWS UNDER CLAUSE 16 OF 
THE PHARMACY ACT. 
We liad thought, after the numerous explanations 
which have been given, in this Journal and other¬ 
wise, of the effect of Clause 16 of the Pharmacy 
Act, that at least its meaning was understood, and 
although there might be a disposition in some 
quarters to seek for an alteration of the law, for the 
sake of the relatives of those who might die with¬ 
out making the necessary arrangements for carrying 
on a business, we believed the possibility of such a 
provision and the nature of it were now pretty well 
known to the whole body of chemists and druggists. 
But the letter of Mr. Barker, which is printed in 
another part of the Journal, and is only a type of 
many that we have received, appears to show that 
there is still considerable misapprehension upon the 
subject; and as it is a matter of very great interest 
to the majority of the members of the trade, we 
have thought it preferable to risk saying what 
has been said before if by so doing errors may 
be dissipated before they are irremediable. 
The precise words of the portion of Clause 16 
about which so much interest has centred, since the 
attention of the members of the Pharmaceutical 
Society present at the Annual Meeting was called to 
it by Mr. Smith, are as follows:—“ Upon the decease 
“of any Pharmaceutical Chemist or Chemist and 
“ Druggist actually in business at the time of his 
“ death, it shall be lawful for any executor, adminis- 
“ trator or trustee of the estate of such Phannaceu- 
“ tical Chemist or Chemist and Druggist to continue 
“ such business if and so long only as such business 
“shall be bond fide conducted by a duly qualified 
“assistant; and a duly qualified assistant, within 
“ the meaning of this clause, shall be a Pharma- 
“ ceutical Chemist or a Chemist and Druggist re¬ 
gistered by the Registrar under the Pharmacy 
“ Act or tliis Act.” 
In our opinion, upon the death of the proprietor 
of a chemist and druggist’s business, the plan most 
judicious and profitable for all concerned is to realize 
the property on the most favourable terms that can 
be obtained, rather than carry on the business by a 
kind of proxy, with the possibility of its dwindling 
away. But those who differ from us in tills opinion 
will see that the above words, read intelligently, 
provide for cases where it is wished to carry on a 
business, and certainly they are not open to the charge 
of inflecting hardship upon the survivors. If any 
hardship arises, it will be through the misapprehen¬ 
sion or the neglect to act upon the provision therein 
made. 
One principal danger seems to lie in the possible 
neglect of the fact that the power of an executor, 
administrator or trustee to carry on a business with 
the assistance of a duly qualified assistant exists 
only as long as the trust lasts, and that as soon as 
the trust ceases, such persons have no more right to 
carry on the business than any other unregistered 
person. As was clearly explained by the Solicitor 
at the last Annual Meeting, a business can “ only 
“ be carried on by trustees, or executors, or adminis* 
“ trators, not by a legatee. If a man died without 
“ a will, some one must administer in the estate, and 
“ he could carry on the business for the benefit of 
“ the widow; but the moment the estate passed to a 
“ legatee, then the executorship or trusteeship came 
“ to an end.” With regard to the possible duration 
of a trust, he also explained that there was no limit 
“if and so long only, as such business shall be bond 
u fide conducted by a duly qualified assistant.” Now, 
as it is possible to appoint any person a trustee on 
behalf of any other person, it is evident that any 
hardship that may arise will not primd facie be caused 
by tliis clause. 
Another point that must not be forgotten is the fact 
that the word “ assistant ” has a meaning attached 
to it in this instance very different to that with which 
it is unfortunately too often associated. As has. 
been before pointed out, there is nothing in the law 
winch prescribes the qualifications that must be 
possessed by an “ assistant ” to a registered chemist 
and druggist; this is at present left to liis own 
judgment. But the “ assistant ” employed by an 
executor, administrator or trustee of an estate, must 
be a “ pharmaceutical chemist ” or a registered 
“ chemist and druggist.” 
We have not alluded to this subject with any* 
desire to promote the multiplication of such trusts 
as those above referred to. On the contrary, as we 
have before remarked, we believe that, as a rule, it 
is better that a business should be disposed of, while 
the associations of its former proprietor are fresh in 
the memory of the customers, than that they should 
be deadened by the intervention of one who cannot, 
possibly take the same interest in it. But there is evi¬ 
dently a great deal of uneasiness, and perhaps some- 
ill feeling existing among chemists and druggists,, 
arising from a misunderstanding of the actual state 
of the law, and therefore any explanation that tends, 
to remove it will have a worthy object in the pro¬ 
motion of peace and good will among the members of' 
our body. 
