There is a clear distinction between the rights and privileges of assistant pharmacists and registered pharmacists.

(the same being section 2179 Burns' Statutes 1905), which reads as follows: "Every person who shall erect, or continue and main- tain any public nuisance, to the injury of any part of the citizens of this state, shall, on conviction be fined not ex- ceeding one hundred dollars," upon the authority of the case of State v. Ohio Oil Company, 150 Ind., p. 21, in which case an injunction against the waste of gas was awarded as against a public nuisance, at the suit of the public authorities, the attorney-general and the prosecuting at- torney of the Madison circuit court. Not only can this waste be prohibited at the suit of the public, but it can be enjoined by any private individual who has an interest as one of the common owners of the underlying gas. It would probably be wise to test the question of the repeal. by having the prosecutor appeal the case: but, in the meantime. you can proceed by another criminal action for public nuisance, or by injunction by the state: or, if any private person or cor- poration, interested, so desires, he may enjoin. Manufacturers' Gas & Oil Co. v. Indiana Natural Gas & Oil Co., 155 Ind. 461. PHARMACY, INDIANA BOARD OF-CONSTRUCTION OF ACTS IN REGARD TO. June 8, 1907. Hion. A. F. Sala, Secretary, Indiana Board of Pharmacy, Win- chester, Indiana: Dear Sir-Your communication of June 5th received, in which you ask my opinion: First-Whether under section 8 of the act of 1899 (Acts 1899, p. 159) the registered assistant pharmacists have the same rights and privileges as the registered pharmacists. Second-Whether under section 6 of the act of March 9, 1907 (Acts 1907, p. 317), amending section 8 of the act of 1899, regis- tered assistant pharmacists have the same rights and privileges as the registered pharmacists. Third-Why should not the board of pharmacy grant regis- tered pharmacist certificates to all registered assistant pharma- cists without examination? Since section 8 of the act of March 1, 1899, was amended by section 6 of the act of March 9, 1907, it could not now be of any benefit to your board for me to express my opinion as to how it should have been construed. By reference to my opinion to you under date of June 1, 1907, you will see that I gave it as my opinion that your board was not authorized to register assistant pharmacists as registered pharmacists, unless such assistant registered pharmacists comply with the requirements of section 3 of the act of 1907, at the same time, giving you at length my reasons therefor (see my opinion of June 1, 1907, at page 4) ; and upon re-examination I see no reason for changing the opinion then expressed. It is apparent, from the provisions of section 6 of the act of 1907, amending section 8 of the act of 1899, that there is a clear distinction between the rights and privileges of assistant pharma- cists and registered pharmacists, and that distinction you prop- erly recognized by the rifles submitted to me some days ago. It is provided in this section "that a registered assistant pharmacist may be left in charge during the temporary absence of the registered pharmacist," etc., and to hold that each of the two classes of druggists have the same "rights and privi- leges" would be to ignore altogether the above provision of the law, a course not allowable. It cannot now'be material what was a proper construction of section 8 of the act of 1899, as section 6 of the act of 1907 has taken its place, and it is my opinion that section 6, when con- strued with the provisions of section 3 of the act, does not author- ize your board to "grant registered pharmacist certificates to registered assistant pharmacists, who were registered as such prior to April, 1907, and who have had at least four years experi- ence, without examination" (see my opinion of June 1, 1907, pages 4 and 5). INDIANA REFORMATORY BOND OF TREASURER. June 7, 1907. Hon. W. If. Whittaker, Superintendent Indiana Reformatory, Jeffersonville, Indiana: Dear Sir-Your communication of June 1st received, request- ing my opinion as to "Whether it will be necessary for me to give a tem- porary bond of $50,000 until December 1st, to comply with