A WRONG NAME

Hokitika Guardian, 21 November 1924, Page 4

A WRONG NAME

CASTOR OIL CHOCOLATES.

BREACH OF DRUGS ACT

CHRISTCHURCH, Nov. 20. A rose of interest to -chemists was heard at the Hagisliatc's Coilrt yesterday, wiicii iiii iuformtltion Was heard against a joeal eiiemist for sell in;; a drug under the name of castor oil enocolatijg, which, although they had the same effect as castor oil chocolates, contained less than two per cent, of castor oil. Air AYyvcrn Wilson. S.AL, was on the Bench, and Air Brown represented the Health Department and Air llaniia the ilefcndaiit. Cyril Price was charged with having sold a drug, phenol-phtliaiein. in a package which had attached thereto a misleading statement, purporting to indicate the nature of the article contained in the package as compound castor oil chocolates. Air Brown said that it laid with the Alagi'strate to decide whether the package was misleading or not. ’I he amount of castor oil in the tablets was little or any. and the amount of plienolpliihalein was about 8 per cent, tin these grounds, it would appear that a correct label would indicate the correct active element instead of stating castor oil. of which there was little or

Air Hanna said that the case was one of great importance to the chemists of New Zealand, and the Chemists’ Protection Association was defending it. Afr Bickerton. the Government analyst, would stale that (here was one and a-half per cent, of castor oil in the tablets. The properties of plienolplii halein were exactly the same as those of castor oil. and their effect was about the same. It was a British preparation. 'l'lie defence was that the description was not misleading. Iho use of th» word “compound" indicated that the contents were a mixture. The words “hotter than castor oil” would indicate that the customer was buying something different from plain castor oil. He did not think that the public health or the public pocket-was affected. and he submitted that the description was not misleading. Alexander A. Bickerton, Government Analyst, said that the quantity ol castor oil was so small as to he of no value medicinally. There was about one or two per cent, ol chocolate, the remainder being sugar. The Alagistrate said that. I lie stalement, “compound castor oil chocolates, would convey the impression that it was castor oil in a palatable form for children. The largest type on the package was “castor oil,” while the word “compound” was much smaller. The castor oil that was in the tablets had no medicinal value. The chemist was really selling another drug in the place of castor oil. It was not suggested that the drug was harmful at all. It seemed to he clearly a ease ol a breach of the Act. The chemist could have the proper description on the front of the package. The defendant would he convicted,- and as it was a test case no line would he imposed, hut defendant would have to pay costs £-1 9s.