The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-04-14
PHILLIPS vs.. ALDEN.
The First OF the PrOsecu tions of she Apo
Iheearies Plaintiff N0n-suited.

On Saturday in the Superior Court, before
Judge Bonney, the case of Geo. n. Phillips
against VIM. o. Alden, of @. II. Guppy &
Co., druggists. was taken up. D. Fl. Meaher,
Esq, and Hon, ]. j. Perry opened the case
for the plaintiff, and Hon. w. F. Lunt con-
Quoted the defense. Mr.. Alden and his clerk,
Mr.. Alberts, were the only witnesses examin-
ed, and their testimony recited defendants
connection with the business of the store
which as, in brief, that he kept the books,
sold cigars, 'oilet articles, proprietary medi-
cines, and had general oversight of the store,
and that the compromising of prescriptions was
performed by Mr. Alberts and two other regis
tered spothecaries.
Hon. w. f. Lunt, counsel for Mr.. Alden,
claimed that under this testimony the defend
ant was not liable. He argued at some length
claiming that the word apothecary in the act
should be construed to mean one who practices
pharmacy, one who prepares drugs for medici-
nal uses, and does not include person who Is
merely engaged in the sale of drugs and who
does not compound them. He moved for
non-suit.
The court, after stating the facts in the case.
which were undisputed, read the law passed
by the legislature, and the penalty attached
for its non-observance. He said that il was
one of the rules of construction is that the
statutes are to receive such a construction as
must evidently have been intend ed by the leg
islature, and to ascertain that intention it is
proper for the Court to consider the object in
view and the mischief intended to be reme-
died. Judge Bonney then proceeded to define
the term pharmacy" and spoke of the pur-
pose of the legislature in enacting the statute.
He explained the business of an apoth ecary as
meaning to engage in the employment or occu-
patton of compromising and preparing medi-
cines and selling the same, and before any per-
son in this State can engage in such employ
ment or work he must prove his skill to the
satisfaction of the Commissioners of Pbarma-
CIV, by the kind Of evidence which the statute
prescribes. To engage in the business of an
apothecarv, and to be financially interested in
the business of an apothecary, are two differ
ent things. In concluding, the Judge said:
"Personally the defendant did not engage in the
filling of prescriptions or the compromising of medi-
cinee. There is no testimony In the case that any
medicine was prepared or prescription lei at the
store by any person not authorized engage In the
business of au apothecary by the Commissioners of
Pharmacy. His part of the business to act as
salesman of various articles in the store which did
not require person skilled in pharmacy TO prepare
and compound when ordered. He h ID charge of the
finances and books of the concern. He was not
within the meaning of the statute engaged in the
business of apothecary during the time alleged
In the writ. He was not required By law to be ex-
amined and certihcated by the Commissioners of
Pharmacy. He is not subject to the penalty. rs
claimed by the prosecutor and therefore grant the
motion and order nonsuit."
The counsel for plaintiff gave notice OF their
intention to file exceptions to the ruling to pre-
sent the case to the law court in July.