392 
Michael  Carteighe. 
f  Am.  Jour.  Pharm. 
1     August,  1910. 
chemist  and  druggist,  and  thus  place  the  Council  in  a  position  to  ask 
Parliament  for  powers  to  erase  from  the  Register  the  names  of  per- 
sons guilty  of  unprofessional  conduct.  In  those  days  it  would  have 
been  considered,  without  doubt,  that  a  registered  person  who  acted 
as  cover  to  an  unregistered  person  or  a  company  would  have  been 
guilty  of  unprofessional  conduct,  but  unfortunately  the  members  of 
the  craft  had  not  the  gift  of  seeing  sufficiently  far  ahead,  and  so  the 
policy  in  its  fullest  sense  never  matured.  Nevertheless,  his  educa- 
tional policy  was  not  wasted,  and  to-day  British  pharmacists  are 
reaping  the  benefit  of  it.  Mr.  Carteighe  realized  the  force  and  the 
wisdom  of  the  policy  of  the  founders  of  the  Society,  namely,  that  the 
foundation  of  effective  organization  was  education  in  its  widest 
sense,  and  the  major  portion  of  his  efforts  were  devoted  to  securing 
for  the  Society  a  status  among  recognized  technical  and  scientific 
institutions  of  the  country.  He  was  successful  in  bringing  the 
Society  to  the  notice  of  a  number  of  distinguished  men,  whose  good- 
will and  co-operation  were  calculated  to  be  of  immense  significance 
to  a  chartered  Society.  Among  these  may  be  mentioned  the  late 
Sir  Michael  Foster,  Professor  Dewar,  Sir  H.  W.  Acland,  Sir  Dyce 
Duckworth,  Sir  Henry  Roscoe,  Sir  G.  Sieveking,  Sir  Richard 
Quain,  Sir  Lauder  Brunton,  and  Sir  J.  S.  Burden-Sanderson.  This 
was  part  and  parcel  of  his  policy  to  obtain  recognition  for  the 
Society,  by  bodies  whose  influence  would  be  of  the  utmost  value. 
Besides  the  Leith  Depot  case  already  referred  to,  the  outstanding 
features  of  the  legal  work  of  the  Society  during  Mr.  Carteighe's 
period  of  office  was  a  long  series  of  important  decisions.  Thus  it 
was  shown  by  a  judgment  of  the  Queen's  Bench  Division  that  the 
use  of  the  title  "  Shipping  Druggists  "  by  an  unqualified  person  and 
a  qualified  person  in  association  is  an  offence  by  the  former.  The 
word  "  Seller  "  within  the  meaning  of  Section  15  of  the  Act  of  1868 
was  defined  as  the  person  who  actually  effects  the  sale.  Proprie- 
tary preparations  containing  poison  were  shown,  in  the  Piper  case, 
not  to  be  within  the  exemption  of  Section  16  (1868)  relating  to 
"  Patent  Medicines."  It  was  held  that  the  sale  of  a  preparation  con- 
taining poison  is  a  sale  of  a  poison.  "  Open  shop  "  for  the  sale  of 
poison  was  defined  as  a  place  where  a  poison  may  be  purchased  by 
the  public.  The  use  of  the  title  "  Chemist "  was  shown  to  be  an 
offence  in  Scotland  even  when  such  title  is  associated  with  modify- 
ing words,  and  the  words  "  Patent  Medicines  "  in  Section  16  of  the 
