K. B. Div. which has been so much relied upon, or upon its bearing upon the question for decision here. 1904. ATTY.-GEN. v. JAMESON. Solicitor for the informant: The Solicitor of Inland Revenue. R. ST. J. C. BARRETT, APPELLANT; HENRY, RESPONDENT (1). Evidence-Register of pharmaceutical chemists and of chemists and druggists—Admissibility of printed copy-Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. c. 57), s. 27. The Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, contains provisions for the making out, by the registrar appointed by the council of the Pharmaceutical Society for Ireland, of a register of pharmaceutical chemists for Ireland, and a register of chemists and druggists in Ireland, and sect. 27 provides that the registrar shall, every year, cause to be printed, published, and sold, correct copies of such registers, and that "printed copies of such registers for the time being in force, purporting to be so printed and published as aforesaid, or any extract therefrom, or from the original registers, certified under the hand of the said registrar, and countersigned by the president or two members of the said council, shall be evidence in all Courts and in all proceedings' of the matters specified in the section : Held, that the condition as to certifying by the registrar and countersigning by the president or two members of the council, refers only to the case where an extract is intended to be made evidence, and that a printed copy of the register, purporting to be printed and published in accordance with the section, is admissible in evidence, though not so certified and countersigned. CASE STATED under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43. The respondent was charged before the Justices at a Petty Sessions held at Coolany, in the county of Sligo, on a summons in which the appellant, a sergeant of the Royal Irish Constabulary, was the complainant, with having kept open shop for retailing and dispensing poisons contrary to the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, he not being a person properly qualified in that behalf according to law. The Justices made an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice, but on the application of the complainant stated the present case. The case, as stated, set out that at the hearing of the complaint, a printed copy of the Annual Register of pharmaceutical chemists (1) Before LORD O'BRIEN, L.C.J., and GIBSON and MADDEN, JJ. 1904-VOL. II. 3 F K. B. Div. 1904. Oct. 27. 1904. BARRETT v. HENRY. K. B. Div. for Ireland for the time being in force in conformity with the provisions of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 57, s. 27, and purporting so to be printed and published, was tendered in evidence by the complainant. That it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the said printed copy could not be received as evidence against the defendant, inasmuch as it was not certified in conformity with the provisions of the said 27th section. That the Justices being of opinion that the contention of the defendant was accurate in point of law, and that the said printed copy as tendered was not evidence against the defendant, not being verified under the hand of the registrar of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, and countersigned by the president or two members of the council of the said Society in conformity with the provisions of the said 27th section, dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The judgment of the Court was required as to whether the Justices were correct in point of law in their determination, or as to what should be done in the premises. Day (with him Gordon, K.C.), for the appellant : Section 27 of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, provides for three distinct methods of proof-1st, a printed copy of the register purporting to be printed and published by the registrar; 2ndly, an extract from such printed copy; and, 3rdly, an extract from the original register. We submit that the provisions as to certifying by the registrar and countersigning by the president or two members of the council, apply only to the second and third methods of proof. This is in accordance with the grammatical construction of the section, and also with its policy, the object being to facilitate the mode of proof. Under the Act the registrar is bound to make out and keep a correct register, and to print, publish, and sell correct copies of it. No hardship is suffered by a defendant in such case, since the printed copy is merely prima facie evidence. It is clear that under the corresponding section of the English Act, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 121, section 13, the printed copy is evidence without more, and it is to be presumed that the intention was that the law should be the same in both countries. The statement in Taylor on Evidence, 9th ed., p. 1078, that "the 1904. BARRETT v. HENRY. registration of pharmaceutical chemists, and of chemists and K. B. Div. druggists, is provable by printed copies of the registers purporting to be published by the registrar appointed under the Pharmacy Acts of 1852 or 1868, and countersigned by the president or two members of the council of the Pharmaceutical Society," if it means that such countersigning is necessary to the admissibility in evidence of the printed copy, cannot be supported. J. B. Powell, for the respondent : I submit that the provisions of sect. 27 of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 57, as to the certifying by the registrar and countersigning by the president or two members of the council, apply to all the preceding matters mentioned in the section. This is the proper construction grammatically, and is also in accordance with the policy of the Act. Section 13 of the English Act, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 121, undoubtedly makes the printed copy evidence without further authentification, but that Act contains no provisions corresponding to those in sections 25 and 26 of our Act enabling the council, as distinct from the registrar, to restore or erase names in the register. In Ireland, therefore, the printed copy may not accurately represent the real register, inasmuch as there may have been a subsequent alteration by the council. For this reason the 27th section of our Act is designedly framed differently from sect. 13 of the English Act, and requires the printed copy to be further authenticated by the body having power to make alterations in the register. Gordon, K.C., in reply. LORD O'BRIEN, L.C.J.: This case is of some little importance. The net question is whether a printed copy of the register of pharmaceutical chemists, purporting to be printed and published by the registrar, but not certified under the hand of the registrar and countersigned by the president or two members of the council of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, is evidence under the provisions of section 27 of the Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875, 1904. BARRETT v. L.C.J. K. B. Div. for the purpose of showing that the defendant is not a registered pharmaceutical chemist, inasmuch as his name does not appear in such printed copy. We are all of opinion that it is evidence for HENRY. this purpose, though not so certified and countersigned. Mr. Henn, Lord O'Brien, the Resident Magistrate, took a different view, but he had not the advantage of hearing the arguments which have been addressed to us, nor was he referred to the English statute, which certainly throws some light on the matter. It is quite plain on referring to the 13th section of the English Act, 31 & 32 Vict. c. 121, that in England the methods of proof are alternative, and that the production of the printed copy is sufficient, though not certified or countersigned. Bearing this in mind, I now come to the 27th section of our Act. The section commences by enacting that the registrar shall, in the month of January in every year, cause to be printed, published, and sold, correct copies of the register of pharmaceutical chemists and of the register of chemists and druggists, in alphabetical order according to the surnames, thus making it the duty of the registrar to have correct copies of these registers printed and published. The section then goes on: "And printed copies of such registers for the time being in force, purporting to be so printed and published as aforesaid, or any extract therefrom, or from the original registers, certified under the hand of the said registrar, and countersigned by the president or two members of the said council, shall be evidence in all Courts and in all proceedings that the persons therein specified are registered according to the provisions of this Act, and the absence of the name of any person from any such copy of either of the said registers shall be evidence, until the contrary shall be made to appear, that such person is not registered in such register according to the provisions of this Act." On the language of the section, I think that three distinct methods of proof are authorized-a printed copy purporting to be printed and published by the registrar, an extract from such printed copy, and an extract from the original register-and that the words "certified under the hand of the said registrar, and countersigned by the president or two members of the said council," apply only to the two modes of proof immediately antecedent, viz., an extract from the printed copy or from the original register. When the |