PHARMACY ACT

Hokitika Guardian, 29 April 1932, Page 2

PHARMACY ACT

INTERESTING PROSECUTION

CHARGE AGAINST DRUGGIST.

CHRISTCHURCH, April 28

Strong criticism of the Pharmacy Act and of the Pharmacy Board was expressed by a defending counsel in an unusual prosecution in the -Magistrate’s Court yesterday. George Bottle was charged with carrying on the business of an unregistered druggist. He pleaded not guilty to the charge, and after hearing the case the Magistrate (-Air H. P. Lawry, S.M.), refused to convict defendant and dismissed the case under Section 92 of the Justices of the Peace Act. -:V

“The Pharmacy Act should be called the ‘Farcical Act’ and we submit that the Pharmacy Board has been wrongly named and should be termed the ‘Farcical Hoard,’ ”. said counsel for the defendant during the case.

“The section of the Act under which tile charge is made states that every person offends who, not being a registered chemist in any way uses the name or title or description or ‘registered chemist,’ pharmaceutical chemist,’ or a chemist or druggist under any other qualification, Under these provisions even Lord Rutherford, one of the world’s greatest chemists, could bo convicted if he came to New Zealand and styled himself a chemist. Even the university professors would he liable.

THE BOARD’S ADVICE. “Bettle was advised nine years ago by the Registrar of the Pharmacy Board that lie could not use the term ‘chemist,’ hut that he could call himself a druggist,” counsel pointed out. “Bottle replied on that advice. Surely if he was expected to know the terms of the Act, the Registrar should know also.” .Mr La wry: Could the Registrar not be charged with aiding and abetting r Counsel stated that Bettle had applied to the Board for registration a month ago. The Board had met a fortnight ago, but the defendant had received no reply. “The application has been granted,” counsel for the Board stated. “The Board certainly asks too much when it expects a man to be penalised ior something they themselves have induced,” Couse] for Bettle, contending that there was something more behind the prosecution, stated that lie believed that an effort had been made to persuade the Postmaster-General to have Bettlel’s private letter-box closed. “I could not think of convicting the defendant under the circumstances,” Mr Lawrv stated when dismissing the ease, lie ordered each party to pay its own costs and refused an application bv counsel for the Board to have the facts of the case noted, when counsel had suggested that further action could be taken'.