I am in receipt of your memorandum dated 10 March 1922, forwarding for my advice the question whether the dispensing of medicines by an employee of the Expropriation Board who is not a duly registered pharmaceutical chemist is a contravention of the Pharmacy Ordinance 1920 of the Territory of New Guinea.

Section 8 of the Pharmacy Ordinance 1920 is as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person not duly registered as a pharmaceutical chemist, other than a legally qualified medical practitioner, to carry on or attempt to carry on the business of a pharmaceutical chemist, or to pretend to be a pharmaceutical chemist, or to assume or use the title of pharmaceutical chemist, pharmaceutist, pharmacist, chemist and druggist, homeopathic chemist, dispensing chemist, or dispensing druggist, or other words of similar import, or to use or exhibit any title, term, or sign, which may be construed to mean that he is qualified to perform the duties of a pharmaceutical chemist, pharmaceutist, pharmacist, chemist and druggist, homeopathic chemist, dispensing chemist, or dispensing druggist.

Penalty: Twenty pounds.

It appears from the file that a qualified medical practitioner is engaged by the Expropriation Board to attend to the employees of the Board. He has under him in the service of the Board an assistant who is not a qualified medical practitioner or a registered pharmaceutical chemist. This assistant dispenses medicines under the general direction or supervision of, or prescribed by, the Board's medical officer, for employees of the Board.

In my opinion the dispensing of medicines for employees of the Board by a servant of the Board does not constitute carrying on or attempting to carry on the business of a pharmaceutical chemist, and is not, therefore, a contravention of section 8 of the Pharmacy Ordinance 1920. I think, also, that the Pharmacy Ordinance 1920 does not bind the Crown, and in the case of New Guinea this term includes the Expropriation Board.

[Vol. 18, p. 319]