View report page

242
1903]
in the British Pharmacopaeia, and that no one knew the formula of these pills,
which had been invented by a Frenchman, Dr. Blaud. The judgment of the
Magistrate was as follows:—
Mr. Mead : I am of opinion, in the first place, that when the Inspector asked to be
supplied with iron pills, he was entitled to be supplied with iron pills in nature, substance,
and quality as laid down by the British Pharmacopaeia. The fact that the man
said, " Blaud's Pills," does not take it out of that category. The ejaculation he used was
in a synonymous and explanatory sense, and nothing was said which was intended to
convey to the mind of the purchaser that he was taking something which was out of the
description of the British Pharmacopaeia. Therefore, he was entitled to receive pills according
to the Biitish Pharmacopaeia. Then it is contended that this case fails under
Section 8. The mere fact that this was on the bottle : " These pills are not prepared
according to the British Pharmacopaeia," and " Blaud's formula," does not cover the
defendants, because these notices were hidden by the outer casing. Therefore, I am of
opinion that this case does not come under the section. There is no evidence that any
specific matter or ingredient has been mixed with the substance that was asked for, so
that the label could be applied to such substance.
The next question is that, though the protection of Section 8 does not follow, has
there not been sufficient notice to the purchaser under Section 6? The bottle was wrapped
in paper, and if the Inspector had been an ordinary purchaser and had gone home with
his purchase before opening it, he would not have known that he had not got what he
expected to be served with. If he was not entitled to have pills according to the British
Pharmacopæia, he is entitled to have something which is called Blaud's pills. That this
is so we have on the evidence. Both verbally and on the bottle he is entitled to have
Blaud's pills. There is, consequently, prima facie evidence that Blaud's formula does
exist, notwithstanding the contention that it was a mere name with no particular basis.
The scientific witnesses say that such a thing does exist, and is recognised in the edition
of the British Pharmacopaeia of 1885. It is shown that such a thing does exist, and it
was recognised by the application of the label on the bottle sold in the vendor's name.
It is shown that a certain formula requires certain drugs to be mixed so as to create 20
per cent. of ferrous carbonate, ingredients of manufacture by the chemical action of which
the desired result is obtained. It is perfectly clear that the article supplied the Inspector
in this case does not comply with such formula. Substantially there should be 20 per
cent. of ferrous carbonate; but the evidence here shows that there was only 4.3; and
at the most, allowing for deterioration, there could not have been more than 8.4. So
that there was a tremendous deficiency. Mr. Bonsey has asked several questions with
regard to the various formulas for the manufacture of Blaud's pills in different countries
—Germany, France, Austria, and America; but in my opinion we have nothing to do
with any foreign nation in this case except France; and we have something to do with
France, because that is the country where it came from. There are variations of detail
in making up, and, possibly, in ingredients, but all the formulas come out practically
with 20 per cent. of ferrous carbonate, etc.
There is another point. Mr. Bonsey says there is no formula at all. That is his
defence. And if that is so, there is a misrepresentation at once, because of the label on
the bottle, which says that the pills are prepared from Dr. Blaud's formula. The pills,
in fact, are prepared from a something that does not exist. On that ground alone the
prosecution is entitled to succeed. Then it is said that this is a proprietary medicine. It
is difficult to say what a proprietary medicine is. But it is a very strong thing to say
that, whether the man is alive or dead, it is a proprietary medicine. All other things
failing, he has taken refuge in saying someone must come forward and say, " I have
proprietary rights in this medicine." I cannot accept this defence; and the prosecution,
under all circumstances, must succeed. I find that on both summonses the offence has
been committed.