QUESTION OF CONTROL.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 934, 29 September 1910, Page 2

QUESTION OF CONTROL.

PRESCRIPTIONS DISPENSED. ' TEST CASE AGAINST CHEMIST. A case of interest to. chemists and lhß .general public was. heard "at the. Magis-|. trato's Court, before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M., yesterday afternoon, when Frank-; Shaw, pharmaceutical chemist, of. Wei-J lington, on. the; information;;! of Mr. C. W. Xeilson, solicitor, for the . Pharmacy:.Board,.-with: keep-; ing._ open his. place of ! business in the 'v Cecil Buildings, Lambton Quay, Wellington, on July 29, August 2, 4,-16, 29, 30,. 31, and September 1, for the compound--ing or ; dispensing of prescriptions, liofi ■: - . under his own immediate .supervision, or control, or that of his duly ; enrolled man-. . - agor.."'". - "' : Mr. C. W. Neilson conducted the .prosocution, and Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon appeared for. tho defendant.- .. Mr.- Fitzgibbon;' at : the '-outset, stated that he had asked Mr. Neilson if lie could examine a number of prescriptions that; he understood were to be put in'as evi-. dence, but' Mr. Neilson;had,refused'him; ~ permission. On- this acc6unt''Mr. ; gibbon now made application .-to, his Wor-' ' ship for leave to examine .the'prescrip-j: tions; on the ground that-it was essential' to his case.. ; - - . -V- - ... His; Worship, said. that counsel- could' examine .-the prescriptions-if during - the ; hearing, he: found' it'-necessary: for' his 1 - -; . case. ■ ■ '■. Mr. -NeilMn,;;in opeijine; the. cafee, said . . the prosecution'- was laid- under Section. 40 of the Pharmacy' Act;. >: Defendant wai .* ■ a registered .chemist, with . shops in .Man- v ' ners Street, Lambton Quay, ;and. Tory . Street., The information, regard to the Lambton "Quay' "shop,T'of ..which: • Alice Jane Gregory-was-the. duly , enrolled . manager. The case was .that' , the shop '.- was not under the control of Shaw, or' -; Miss Gregory. : The; keynote of tho - statute was the 1 protection-of,, the public.- < Witnesses would be called that were ; : not . -connected with the Pharmacy Board,- in'. , -order"to show that on. the dates in'ques-. tion^-the shop, was not. under .the control ' . of. Shaw, or' his duly; enrolled .'manager. - . "i. Eyidenca.was |iven v by;Detectives : Lewis . ' : , - aiid Andrews,- with- the .object,'6f showing ,i *' that i on; July - 29, "August: 2, i, and 16, : prescriptions .were. dispensed' at the Lamb-; —■'" , ton Quay. Pharmacy., when" neither: Shaw ■. nor Miss Gregory was! present. given by. Detective Mason went: to,show.'. . that'there was ho sign of Shaw : . ; or Miss : . Gregory at. the shop at:.certain, hours •on August 29, 30, 31, and September . '; ■■ shop was on . these occasions'• open," and ' people passed' in and out for business." - . At .the; close; of -the ' evidence the • Ga-" : zette was put in, showing the '.list.'-'of- : registered .chemists; aid, the. list:of: medi-' X .cal practitioners;' also k copy of c-ertifi-. "i;... cate of enrolment of Miss Gregory aa ; manager. . . ; Mr. : Fitzgibbon contended, .-'"that f- the. - .proseoution must fail because" -Mr.-.'Neil-':;0; - son referred" to the fact that the infor-. rnation was-laid by!.the.Pharmacy .Board,;'! and. it would appear that the Pharmacy ? Board, was' practically a corporate body, constituted-by the'! Act of 1908; i; It is a . general- principle .laid down. by tlie' . ' .tipes of. the Peace,-Act .that 'cbrporato bodies cannot bo common informers. ~ There-iis no ; provision l in' the Act for tho ... taking of ;■ these proceedings, -.and .the in-''; formation has; been laid;by ilr. Neilson. - : ; The'point Mr. Eitzgibbori wanted'to-raise!:; , -was. .whether the proper procedure, under f !: the- Act. was..byvinformation". or by plainti-... He;was-prepared: 1 fd : admit;that;the pro-., j! ;!- per-procedure',was, by information.'.under'the Justices: of the;" Peace Act on one condition, and' that. was. that, the author^, ised authority under' the Act (which,- in: this case was tho Pharmacy Board), V ' - : which,';being;a-.corporate:..b6dy,-cannot lay ■ an^information, , mayduly'- authorise ite. ' registrar.,to. do so,; in, the .name of the .' registrar "and by' the authority -of the v ■ body.: If , the' proceedings -.were; by.-'in-", formation, must be on the authority of .'. the board. . There , was no proof of the ; authority. of • Mr. N(-ilson to lay the in- ?■" ;. 'formation in this case. ~ ; ~Mr.. Neilson oontended that it was; not.;. 'under , tha : •; Justices of the Peace Act. The. police l .- ■;: could'lay-an.informatiori in similar: cases;;;;-;,;:-' and had done so. iVnyone could lay. an >. v!;; : ..inforinatiorf.'if. aware: able toiViV'''! ! Substantiate a:case.!". Moreover, the" Phar-:";;!, . macy Board ,was a statutory body, and not a corporate, body. ; !.; ■' . • His Worship said the point raised was an important one, and decision would bo !, reserved until Monday pext. ;• '/-