View report page

54
1924]

Prosecutions.-55 summonses were issued under the "Sale of Food and
Drugs Acts," of which 50 were successfully prosecuted. Altogether penalties and
costs to the amount of £109 12s. were obtained. Four prosecutions were also
taken under the "Milk and Dairies Amendment Act, 1922," resulting in convictions
in each case with penalties and costs amounting to £11 11s. One other
summons was taken out under the "Milk and Cream Regulations, 1912 and
1917," the defendant being ordered to pay £1 1s. costs. There were other
infractions of a minor nature in which warnings were given.
Informal Sampling.—This included 8 samples of Dried and 8 of Condensed
Milk.
DISPENSING OF PRESCRIPTIONS.
As in former years (See Reports for 1923 and 1922.) tests were made in regard
to the care displayed by Pharmacists in the dispensing of medicines. A simple
prescription for neuralgia, containing Quinine Sulphate, Ammonium Bromide and
Hydrobromic Acid, was dispensed by twelve chemists, trading in various parts of
the Borough—four were far from accurate, and prosecutions were taken.
No. 1 showed a deficiency of 45 per cent. in the prescribed amount of
Sulphate of Quinine.
The defendant's Counsel could offer no explanation except that perhaps the
wrong weight had been put in the scales.
No. 2 put in 25 per cent. more Quinine than the doctor required.
No. 3 was 27 per cent. deficient in Quinine.
Each was fined £5 with £2 2s. costs.
No. 4 was 23 per cent. deficient in Quinine, 19 per cent. deficient in
Ammonium Bromide, and had added 0.5 per cent. Phosphoric Acid,
which was not ordered.
The name of another person was on the label affixed to the bottle. It transpired
that defendant, the proprietor of the shop, was not a qualified Pharmacist. His
Solicitor volunteeered the statement " that he did not often make up prescripions,
although from long experience, provided that they did not contain anything
dangerous, he was capable of doing so. He regretted that the prescription was