Case Name: STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY v. GASAU
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-12-06
Citations: 107 N.Y.S. 409
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY v. GASAU.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 107
Pages: 409–413

Head Matter:
STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY v. GASAU.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 6, 1907.)
1. Adulteration—Cream of Tartar—“Drug.”
Cream of tartar is a drug within the statutory definition of the words “food” and “drug” in Public Health Law, Laws 1893, p. 1510, c. 661, art 3, §§ 40, 41.
2. Same— Statutory Regulations—Illegal Sales by Merchants—Penalty.
Public Health Law, Laws 1893, p. 1554, c. 661, art. 11, § 187, as amended by Laws 1897, p. 173, c. 297, confers authority on the state board of pharmacy to license pharmacists, prohibits any person from practicing as a pharmacist without a license, and exempts from the operation of the provision sales by retail dealers or merchants of cream of tartar-, etc. Laws 1900, p. 1471, a 667, art. 11, § 197, provides that all pharmaceutical preparations sold in a pharmacy, store, etc., shall he of the standard quality and purity established by the United States Pharmacopoeia, and that every proprietor shall be responsible for the quality of such commodities. Section 199 provides that the provision shall not apply to the sale by merchants of cream of tartar, “except as herein provided.” Held, that section 197 is applicable to merchants selling cream of tartar, and the board of pharmacy may prosecute for the penalty prescribed for a violation thereof, the statute as amended indicating a legislative intent to continue to permit the sale of cream of tartar by merchants without procuring a pharmaceutical license, and to devolve on the state board of pharmacy the duty of enforcing the law, and the right to collect the penalties for selling drugs not of the standard of purity.
Houghton, J., and Patterson, P. J., dissenting.
Appeal from Appellate Term.
Action by the state board of pharmacy against Fred Gasan for the penalty for a violation of Public Health Law, Laws 1893, p. 1554, c. 661, art. 11, § 187, as amended by Laws 1897, p. 173, c. 297. From a determination of the Appellate Term (52 Mise. Rep. 490, 102 N. Y. Supp. 539), affirming a judgment of the Municipal Court in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and LAUGHLIN, HOUGHTON, SCOTT, and LAMBERT, JJ.
Charles M. Stafford, for appellant.
Hieronimus A. Herold, for respondent.

Opinion:
LAUGHLIN, J.
The defendant has been convicted for selling cream of tartar not of the standard' of strength, quality or purity prescribed in the United States Pharmacopoeia.
Section 40 of article' 3 of the public health law (Laws 1893, p. 1510, c. 661) has not been amended since its original enactment. It defines the terms "food" and "drug" as follows:
"The term 'food,' when used herein, shall include every article of food and every beverage used by man and all confectionery; the term 'drug,' when so used, shall include all medicines for external and internal use."
Section 41 of the same article of the public health law, entitled "Adulterations," provides, among other things, as follows:
"No person shall, within the state, manufacture, produce, compound, brew, distill, have, sell or offer for sale any adulterated food or drug. An article shall be deemed to be adulterated within the meaning of this act: A. In case of drugs: (1) If when sold under or by a name recognized in the United States pharmacopoeia, it differs from the standard of strength, quality or purity laid down therein. (2) If, when sold under or by a name not recognized! in the United States pharmacopoeia, but which is found in some other pharmacopoeia or other standard work on materia medica, it differs materially from the standard of strength, quality or purity laid down in such work."
This part of section 41 has not been amended. Subdivision "d" of said section provides that every person violating any provision of the section shall forfeit to the people of the state the sum of $100 for every such violation. Cream of tartar is a drug within the statutory definition already quoted. Article 11 of the public health law, as originally enacted, contains no provision defining the adulteration of drugs, or imposing a penalty therefor. It conferred authority upon the state board of pharmacy to license pharmacists and assistant pharmacists, and in section 186 it prohibited any person from practicing as a pharmacist without such license. By section 187, defining the application of article 11, it excluded from its operation, among other articles, "the sale of the usual domestic remedies by retail dealers in the rural districts." This section was amended by chapter 297, p. 173, of the Laws of 1897, and sales by retail dealers or merchants of cream of tartar, among other things, was exempted from the operation of the provisions of that article. At this time it is quite clear that the purpose of the Legislature in exempting the sale of cream of tartar from the operation of the provisions of article 11 was to render it unnecessary for the seller to procure a license as pharmacist or assistant pharmacist, or to employ a licensed pharmacist or assistant pharmacist in the sale thereof; and the sale of adulterated drugs was left subject to the operation of the provisions of article 3. The Legislature also prescribed in article 11, which originally related wholly, if not principally, to sales without a license, a penalty for a violation thereof (section 190), and authorizes an action by the state board of pharmacy to recover the same. In 1900 the Legislature, by chapter 667, p. 1471, materially amended the provisions of article 11 of the public health law, and added, among other provisions, section 197, which provides as follows:
"Adulteration or Substitution of Drugs, Chemicals and Medicines.
"Subdivision 1. Unles.s otherwise prescribed for, or specified by the customer, all pharmaceutical preparations, sold or dispensed in a pharmacy, dispensary, store .or place, shall be of the standard strength, quality and purity, established by the latest edition of the United States Pharmacopoeia.
"Subdiv. 2. Every proprietor of a wholesale or retail drug store, pharmacy, or other place where drugs, medicines or chemicals are sold, shall be held responsible for the quality and strength of all drugs, chemicals or medicines sold or dispensed by him except those sold in original packages of the manufacturer, and those articles or preparations known a.s patent or proprietary medicines.
"Subdiv. 3. Any person who shall knowingly, wilfully or fraudulently, falsify or adulterate any drug, medical substance or preparation, authorized or recognized in the said Pharmacopoeia, or used or intended to be used in medical practice or shall knowingly, wilfully ,or fraudulently offer for sale, sell or cause the same to be sold, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; all drugs, medical substances, or preparations so falsified or adulterated shall be forfeited to the board and by the board destroyed."
The application of the article which had previously been defined by section 187 was by the amendment defined in section 199, as follows:
"Sec. 199. Application of Article Limited. This article shall not apply to the practice of a practitioner of medicine, who is not the proprietor of a store for the dispensing or retailing of drugs, medicines and poisons, or who is not in the employ of such a proprietor, and shall not prevent practitioners of medicine from supplying their patients with such articles as they may deem proper, and except as "to the labeling of poisons it shall not apply to the sale of medicines or poisons at wholesale when not for the use or consumption of the purchaser, or to the sale of paris green, white hellebore and other poisons for destroying insects, or any substance for use in the arts, or to the manufacture and sale of proprietary medicines, or to the sale by merchants of ammonia, bicarbonate of soda, borax, camphor, castor oil, cream of tartar, dye stuffs, essence ginger, essence peppermint, essence wintergreen, nonpoisonous flavoring essence or extracts, glycerine, licorice, olive oil, sal ammoniac, saltpetre, sal soda and sulphur, except as herein provided. Provided, however, that in the several towns of this state outside of incorporated villages, physicians may compound medicines, fill prescriptions, and sell poisons, duly labeling the same as required by this act, and merchants, and retail dealers may sell the ordinary non-poisonous domestic remedies."
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that his client in selling cream of tartar was subject to the operation of the provisions of sections 40 and 41 of article 3 of the public health law, the material parts of which, so far as applicable, have been stated, and that he was exempt from the operation of the provisions of article 11 and from the penalty now prescribed in section 201 for a violation of said article. It is to be observed that, by the provisions of the public health law as they existed prior to the amendment of 1900, the sale by merchants of cream of tartar was wholly excluded from the operation of the provisions of article 11, but that by the provisions of section 199, added by said amendment, this exemption was modified by the following clause: "Except as herein provided." It is manifest, therefore, that the Legislature intended that some part of article 11, as amended in 1900, should be applicable to merchants selling cream of tartar. An examination of the provisions of the original statute, as amended, indicates that the Legislature" intended to continue to permit the sale of cream of tartar, among other things, by merchants without procuring a license or employing a licensed pharmacist or assistant pharmacist. It is also evident, I think, that, with respect to violation of the law by selling adulterated drugs, the Legislature deemed it advisable to devolve upon the state board of pharmacy the duty of enforcing the law and to confer upon it the right to collect the penalties, and to that end section 197 was enacted, defining, so far as applicable to the question now under review, the standard of purity of drugs substantially the same as defined in section 41 of article 3. I am of opinion, therefore, that the clause "except as herein provided," in section 199, leaves the provisions of section 197 applicable to merchants selling cream of tartar, and that they may be prosecuted by the state board of pharmacy for the penalty prescribed in section 201. It may be more pointedly observed, as already indicated, although the question is not presented for decision, that the effect of the amendment is to relieve those selling adulterated drugs from the application of the provisions of sections 40 and 41 of ar tide 3, and to subject them only to the penalty prescribed in section 201 for a violation of the provisions of article 11, for it is not likely that the Legislature would prescribe, assuming that it has the power, two penalties for such an offense, to be prosecuted and recovered in separate actions by different parties. See Excelsior Petroleum Co. v. Lacey et al., 63 N. Y. 422.
It follows that the determination should be affirmed, with costs.
SCOTT and LAMBERT, TL, concur. PATTERSON, P. J., and HOUGHTON, J., dissent.