Star.
London, England, 1822-06-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

!~ .

s%

COURT OF KlNOli BENCH, JUNE ie..
THE APOTHECRRIEs'OODSPRNT V. ROSY.
This was an action brought by the Apothecaries'
Company to recover the penalty of ceo from the de.
fendant, for practising. as an apothecary without
having previously obtained his certificate from' the
Court of Examiners. The action was founded on the
20th section of 55 George 111. c. 194, which enacts,
" That if any person (except such as are then actually
practising as such) shall, after the Ist day. of August,
1815, act or practise as an apothecary without having
first obtained his certificate as directed by the Sta-
tute, he shall forfeit £20." At the trial it was clearly
proved that Mr. Roby had 'recently practised as an'
apothecary, and that he had passed no examination ;
but it was contended on his behalf that he was within
the exception of the Act, having practised as an apo-
thecary previous to the Ist of August, 1815. It ap.
Feared that he had been apprenticed when young to
a surgeon at Kenilworth, with whom he served three
years, during the latter part of which time he had the
care of the poor of several parishes, and attended the
patients of his master with a skill and success scarcely
to be expected from his age. At the end of this time
his master died, and after living a short time with
his successor, he came to London, where his father
and brother then resided. As his family were rather
in reduced circumstances, he attempted tb avoid be-
coming a burden to them by attending patients on i
his own account; and it was in proof that he attended
several, who received considerable benefit from his
services, and to whom he sent in bills, which they
raid ; but he had no shop or store of dregs. This
lasted for a few weeks previous to the 24th of July,
1815, when he obtained a situation as assistant to a
Medical Gentleman at Chatham, which he filled en
the Ist of August mentioned in the Act. On this.
evidence the Lotto CHIEF JUSTICE expressed a strong
opinion that the defendant had not shewn any acts
amounting to the practice. contemplated in the except-.
ing clause ; but he did not leave-this to the Jury, be-
cause he thought that in order to claim the benefit
of that clause, he must shew that he was practising,
not before only, but on the Ist of August, 1815,
which he clearly was not, as he then was in the ser-
vice of another, the Jury, therefore, being directed to
this effect by his Lordship, sound a verdict for the
plaintiffs. Mr. Colmoti SEHJEANT, in last Easter
Term, obtained a Rule to shew cause why a new
vial should not be granted, on the ground that this
direction was wrong.
Against this Rule, Mr. ScARLETT now sheaved
cause. 1 here was not, he contended, any evidence,
of a practising which ought to have been submitted
to the Jury. He would put it on the plain ground
of common sense, whether a lad, scarcely 17 years of
ane could gravely be regarded as a practising
.aapo-
thecary, because he had mixed up a few medicines?
defendant had no shop, which the very deriva-
tion of the name apothecary imported ; no physician
had sent him prescriptions ; but he had done little
more than what almost every •youth from five years
old to fifteen had performed. Surely it was fitting
that some skill, some education, some expelience.
should be required before very young men were suf-,
fered to practise this dangerous and delicate professirn.
Mr.. 6 unsim, on the same side, urged, thatif such
a practising as that now relied on were erfficiesit to
dispense with the examination nnw required by the
Act, a great number of unqualified persons might
tamper with the public health, in palpable evasion of
the
.wite regulations of the statute.
iilr. Casasect., also for Ole Apothecaries' Com-
pany, argued that,. in point of 12w, the direction of
the Lori Chief Justice was right; and that, there.
fore, the question whether the defendant had prac-
tised before the Ist of August? was properly with-
drawn from the consideration of the Jury.
Mr. Colston SEILJEANT, in support of the Rule,
observed, that the Court were not now called on to
give any opinion on the evidence of practice, but
simply whether that evidence ought-not to have been
left to the Jury. Had it been so left, he believed. in-
deed he was sure, that they would have decided in
Mr. Roby's favour. He contended, that on a view
of all the clauses of the-Act, it would appear tb-be
the intention of the Legislature to exempt any one
who was practising before the Ist of August from its
operation, and that the Court would not incline to
extend its construction, in a case where the ruin of a
most meritorious individual would be the consequence
of an unfavourable decision.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE suggested a doubt, whe-
ther an infant could practice at all. Supposing any
lad of seventeen were now to do what Mr. Roby did
at the same age; could any one say that he made
himself liable to the penalties of this statute?
M
Mr. COM ON gERJE.4 lam afraid the Apo-
thecaries Company would say so, my Lord."
The LCttD CIIIEF JUSTICE.—" I cannot hear im-
putations on the Apothecaries Company, who have
only acted in the discharge of a great public duty in
bringing this action."
Mr. CObINION SER.JEANT." At least, the instance
they have selected is unfortunate. Here is a young
man, whom their own witnesses describe as having
rendered them essential benefit, proceeded against
in a manner which must destroy all his prospects iu
life, if it succeeds." ,
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE,—" Really these z•eflec-
tibias must not be cast. Were we to allow them, we
should lend ourselves to defeat the object of a Moat
beneficial law. lam more anxious to stop them, lest
they should have an operation on my mind, which I
do opt desire."
Mr. CoSISIoN SKRJEANT.— " Your Lordship would
not,-1 am sure no Judge would, permit his displea-
sure at anything an Advocate might offer to affect
his opinion on the case of the client."
The LORD CRIES JUSTICE.—" Certainly not, if I
can help it, Mr. Common Serjeant."
Mr. COMMON SERJEANT proceeded to combat the
objectioO suggested by the Court, which he had now
heard for the first time. Surely, if an infant per-
formed a cure by his skill, he might sustain an ac-
tion for his services ; and if he professed to apply me-
dicines without skill, he was liable to an action en
the case, though not to an action founded on the pro-
mise. At all events, the Court would not decide the
case on this very nice point of law, without hearing
r argument.
LORI) Coles.JusTwa, after conferring with
other Judges, said, that as the case was of con.

case Or.
further
The
the oih