THE ALUMNI JOURNAL 



287 



covered are paid to the trustees of the 

 College of Pharmacy and expended 

 for the benefit of its library. I did not, 

 however, find any provisions in these 

 sections for procuring their enforce- 

 ment. This is to be deplored, not alone 

 for the sake of the College and its libra- 

 ry, but of the profession itself. It might 

 be well if the recent wholesome investi- 

 gations into the adulteration of milk 

 were extended to drugs and medicines. 

 It would, furthermore, be extremely ad- 

 vantageous if some such officer of the 

 city government as the corporation at- 

 torney were required to institute and 

 conduct prosecutions under these sections. 



As to the civil liability of pharmacists, 

 the sparseness of litigation concerning it is 

 a powerful testimonial to the painstaking 

 care and professional skill of the druggist 

 of to-day. Almost every vocation in life 

 furnishes far more occasion to the courts 

 for the definition of personal rights, and 

 obligations arising out of allegations of 

 negligence, than does that of the pharma- 

 cist. Tbe law books are full of cases 

 touching the alleged incompetency of 

 men of other professions, while the in- 

 stances in which an apothecary appears 

 as a defendant on account of unskillful- 

 ness are comparatively rare. It is true 

 that in more recent years some grave 

 questions have arisen and caused some 

 volume of litigation. But these, in the 

 main, relate, as it were, to the purely 

 mercantile side of the calling as regards 

 proprietary medicines and the like, and 

 not to any difficulties arising out of the 

 compounding of prescriptions. 



The question has been submitted as to 

 who owns the prescription. 



Our courts have not yet had oppor- 

 tunity to pass directly upon it, and it re- 

 mains purely academic. 



Prof. Ordronaux in his "Jurisprudence 

 of Medicine," p. 291, indulges in a 



learned and profound discussion of the 

 subject. He does not claim any ex- 

 clusive right of property in physician, 

 patient or pharmacist. He is of opinion, 

 that the first has a proprietary right, and 

 the second a fiduciary ownership, but 

 does not fix the status of the last. A 

 pharmacist has no right to communicate 

 to others the nature and ingredients of a 

 prescription, for that would certainly fall 

 within the spirit of the law which holds 

 sacred the communications between pro- 

 fessional men and their patrons. Justice 

 Yates in Mills vs. Taylor, 4, Burr 2362, 

 said: that ideas are free, and every 

 man has aright to keep them and aright 

 to make public and control their publi- 

 cation. 



In Abernethy vs. Hutchinson, 3 Iy. J. 

 Ch. 209, a lecture was held to be the pri- 

 vate property of its writer whose pub- 

 lication he could enjoin. In Gee 

 vs. Pritchard, 2 Swan, 402, a letter writ- 

 ten to a friend was thus protected. In 

 Morrison vs. Moat, 9, Hare, Ch. 241, 

 the publication of a secret in the com- 

 pounding of a medicine was prevented. 

 In England in Yovatt vs. Wingard, 1 J. 

 & W. 394, in 1820, an injunction was 

 granted against making any use oforcom- 

 municating certain recipes for veterinary 

 medicines. Wingard while employed 

 by Yovatt had access to his prescription 

 book and copied them. Lord Eldon 

 granted the injunction upon the ground 

 that there had been a breach of trust 

 and confidence. In these days of intel- 

 lectual activity in various directions, 

 when the press and modern inventions 

 make private actions public property, 

 the right to privacy has come to be recog- 

 nized as a personal right of equal claims 

 to the protection of the law with the 

 time-honored rights to life, limb and 

 property. The courts will prevent a 

 breach of confidence or trust, and what 

 might be termed an implied contract not 



