THE ALUMNI JOURNAL, 



289 



other hand they have, with the aid of stool 

 pigeons, often worked grievous wrong. 

 But, as Justice Hawkins says in Apoth- 

 ecaries vs. Jones, 5 R. 101, " It is idle 

 to lay down a golden rule upon the sub- 

 ject." The demarcations of each case 

 must be noted, and the degree of liabili- 

 ty becomes a question of fact. 



The pharmacist is liable in damages 

 for all injuries inflicted through his 

 ignorance; unskillfulness or carelessness. 

 He must know, ex professo, the proper- 

 ties of medicines and the proper doses, 

 be fullv equipped with the knowledge 

 required by the standards of his profes- 

 sion, and keep abreast with the devel- 

 opments of materia medica in so far as 

 they may come into service in modern 

 pharmacy. The law does not require 

 him to be an expert, but he will be held 

 to warrant the purity of the drugs he 

 employs in filling prescriptions, and that 

 they are of the quality called for by the 

 physician. See Ordronaux's Jurispru- 

 dence of Medicine p. 259. He must be 

 conversant with the language of pre- 

 scriptions and the means for detecting 

 the quality of drugs. He must not grow 

 rusty in his knowledge and the discov- 

 eries of the properties of nature's forces, 

 together with the wonderful disclosures 

 of modern chemistry must not be "a hid- 

 den book " to him. 



A leading case in our State is that of 



Thomas vs. Winchester, 6 N. Y. 397. 

 It was decided by the Court of Appeals 

 in July, 1852. Ajar had been labeled 

 il yi lb. Dandelion, prepared by A. Gil- 

 bert, No. 108 John St., New York. Jar 

 8 oz." Gilbert was in the employ of 

 Winchester and the labels were paid for 

 by the latter, and used in his business 

 with his knowledge and assent. The 

 jar was sold to Jas. S. Aspinwall, a 

 druggist in New York, as containing ex- 

 tract of dandelion. As a matter of fact 

 it contained extract of belladonna. He 

 sold it to Dr. Foord, a druggist in Caze- 



novia, Madison Co., New York. Mrs, 

 Thomas had been taken ill and her 

 physician prescribed extract of dandelion. 

 Her husband went to Dr. Foord' s drug 

 store and was given some of the contents 

 of the jar in question, in the belief that 

 it contained extract of dandelion. Mrs. 

 Thomas took the medicine according to 

 prescription and as a result, her life was 

 endangered. Upon recovering, she 

 brought an action for damages against 

 Winchester, the original seller. 



She obtained a verdict and the whole- 

 saler appealed. Chief Justice Ruggles 

 declared that "the remote vendor of 

 medicine upon which he has carelessly 

 put a wrong label, and which, so labeled 

 he puts upon the market, is liable for in- 

 juries resulting therefrom. This is so, 

 although there be no privity or connect- 

 ion between such vendor and the person 

 injured by its use. Every man is bound 

 under the law to avoid that which en- 

 dangers another." The court dwells 

 upon the danger to the public because of 

 unskillfulness or carelessness in the pro- 

 fession, and though there was no con- 

 tract between the patient and the whole- 

 saler, an implied contract was declared 

 to necessarily exist, because of the dan- 

 ger to the public from mismanagement in 

 the business. 



So in England a chemist who negli- 

 gently sold laudanum as paregoric, and 

 caused the death of the person who took 

 it, was declared guilty of manslaughter. 



Tessymond's case, 1 Lewin's Crown Cases, 

 p. 169. 



In Kentucky, druggists were held lia- 

 ble for selling snake root for peruvian 

 bark, and croton oil for linseed oil. 



Fleet vs. Hollenkamp, 13 B, Munroe 219. 

 Hanford vs. Payne, 11 Bush 380. 



In Michigan the druggist was held for 

 his clerk's mistake in giving sulphate of 

 zinc for epsom salts. 



