R v Griffin

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jennett J and Van Der Riet J
• Judgment Date: 14 November 1956
• Citation: 1957 (2) SA 74 (E)
• Hearing Date: 14 November 1956
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

B Jennett, J.:

The appellant in this case was convicted of a contravention of sec. 37 (1) (b) of Act 13 of 1928, as amended, in that she, not being registered as a chemist or druggest, did wrongfully use the term 'Arcade Medicines and Toilet Requisites' to describe the premises in which she C carried on a business under a general dealer's licence and a patent and proprietary medicines licence.

In framing the charge the prosecutor put in all the words appearing in sec. 37 (1) (b) of the Act and added these words: 'to wit, by using the terms 'Arcade Medicines and Toilet Requisites'.'

D One of the grounds of appeal is that this charge was embarrassing, wanting in particularity and that it disclosed no offence in terms of sec. 315 of Act 56 of 1955. In my view there is no force in this ground of appeal. The section, I think, clearly discloses three categories of conduct, namely, firstly, pretending or holding oneself out as a chemist; secondly, calling oneself a chemist, etc., or using a name, a title, a description or symbol indicating or calculated to leave persons E to infer that one is a chemist, etc., or registered under the Act; and, thirdly, using in the description of one's business premises the name 'pharmacy', 'chemist shop' or 'drug store' or any other term of like meaning. The charge makes it clear that the Crown allegation concerns the conduct falling under the third category. The other allegations were F under the circumstances mere surplusage, and there is no ground for concluding that their inclusion caused any embarrassment to the appellant.

The magistrate seems to have considered that appellant was guilty in that by using the name 'Arcade Medicines and Toilet Requisites' for her G business premises, she had pretended to be a chemist or had used a title or description which led persons to infer that she was a qualified chemist, etc. No doubt the conduct complained of may in some cases fall within more than one of the categories referred to in the section, but it seems to me that in this case the conduct must be considered as covered, if at all, by the third category in the section. I say that because I think that the conduct referred to under the other two H categories is related more specifically to a suggestion by the person charged that he or she personally is a chemist, etc., or is possessed of the qualifications of a chemist, etc. For example, the second category involves conduct alleging the use of...