CO129-563-2 Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance- 1937 31-5-1937 - 6-1-1938 — Page 34

35

"

บ

Conditions

as to the giving of directions by Governor in Council

in cases of conviction etc. of employee. 23 & 24 Geo. 5,

c. 25, s. 11.

8

macist render him, unfit to be on the register, the Governor in Council, after making inquiry into the case, may, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, direct that the repre- sentatives shall cease to be authorised sellers of poisons and cease to be entitled to use the titles, emblems and descriptions which might have been used by the pharmacist.

""

(6) In this section, the expression representative means an executor, administrator, trustee or committee, and includes, in respect of the period of three months after the death of a pharmacist leaving no executor who is entitled and willing to carry on his business, any person beneficially interested in the estate of the pharmacist.

13.—(1) Where an act or omission which, under the foregoing provisions of this Ordinance, may be made the ground of a direction by the Governor in Council involving the cesser or restriction of the right of a person (in this section referred to as the owner of the business ") to be an authorised seller of poisons, is an act or omission on the part of an employee of the owner or, if the owner is a body corporate, is an act or omission on the part of any member of the board or any officer or employee of the body corporate, the Governor in Council shall not give any such direction unless proof is given to his satisfaction of some one or more of the facts specified in the next succeeding sub-section, and the Governor in Council is of opinion that having regard to the facts so proved, the owner ought to be regarded as responsible for the act or omission.

(2) The facts as to some one or more of which the Governor in Council must be satisfied before giving any such direction as is mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section

are-

(a) that the act or omission in question was instigated or connived at by the owner of the business or, if the owner is a body corporate, by any member of the board;

(b) that the owner of the business, or any employee of the owner, or, if the owner is a body corporate, any member of the board or any officer or employee of the body corporate, had been guilty at some time within twelve months before the date on which the act or omission in question took place, of a similar act or omission and that the owner had, or reason- ably ought to have had, knowledge of that previous act or omission;

(c) if the act or omission in question was a continuing act or omission, that the owner of the business had, or reasonably ought to have had, knowledge of the continuance thereof;

(d) in the case of a criminal offence being an offence under this Ordinance, that the owner of the business had not used due diligence to enforce the execution of this Ordinance.

(3) In this section references to the responsibility, knowledge or diligence of the owner of the business shall, if the owner is a body corporate, be construed as references to the responsibility, knowledge or diligence of the board as a whole.

•