2go 



THE ALUMNI JOURNAL, 



Brown vs. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576. 

 But a druggist is not responsible for 

 the results though he sell a poisonous 

 drug without labeling it, if in fact, he 

 warned the customer of its properties, 

 and the jury must pass upon the com- 

 petency of the clerk and whether actual 

 negligence was proven. 



Mary Wohlfart sued druggist Charles 

 A. Beckert for damages for negligence 

 because his clerk had given her deceased 

 husband a poison without the usual la- 

 bel. The clerk had warned him that 

 the "black drops" asked for was a strong 

 poison of which he should take only ten 

 or twelve drops for a dose. He took ten 

 times that amount, relying upon a friend 

 who told him he had taken half a glass 

 of what he called "black draught," and 

 that it had cured him. It was admitted 

 that the label was not on the vial. 



The Court held that even though it is 

 a misdemeanor to sell a poison without a 

 label, doing so does not render the drug- 

 gist liable in a civil action, if, before de- 

 livering it he fairly and fully warned him 

 that the substance was poison. 



Wohlfart vs. Beckart, 12 Abb. N. C. 478. 

 In Brown vs. Marshall, 47 Mich. 576, 

 and Beckwith vs. Oatruan, 43 Hun. 265, 

 it was held that a failure on the part of 

 the druggist or his clerk from whom the 

 medicine was purchased to exercise due 

 skill and care must be proved. Judge 

 Cooley stated in the Michigan case that a 

 high degree of care may justly be requir- 

 ed, but that the Courts have not yet gone 

 so far as to dispense with proof of actual 

 negligence as a necessary element in the 

 liability when a mistake has been made. 

 Our Court of Appeals in Allan vs. State 

 S. S. Co. 132, N. Y. 95, where a pas- 

 senger sought to make the company 

 liable for a mistake in the filling of a 

 prescription aboard during a voyage, 

 having been given calomel instead ot 

 quinine, though no actual negligence 



was shown, held that a person is not 

 legally responsible for any unintentional 

 injury from a lawful act when the failure 

 to exercise due care cannot be imputed 

 to him, and the burden of proving such 

 lack of care when the act is lawful, is 

 upon the plaintiff. 



Losee vs. Buchanan, 51 N. Y. 476, 488. 

 Carpenter vs. Blake, 75 N. Y. 12. 

 Morris vs. Piatt, 32 Conn. 75. 

 Simond vs. Henry, 39 Me. 155. 

 A man without a license may invest 

 his money in a pharmacy, but cannot 

 himself sell or dispense medicines. 

 Commonwealth vs. Johnson, 144 Pa. St. 377. 

 '• " " 22 Atl. 703. 



State vs. Morton, 67 Iowa 641. 

 In New York a conviction, in January, 

 1889, for opening and conducting a phar- 

 macy for compounding and retailing 

 medicines without due qualificatioa ac- 

 cording to law, was sustained by the 

 Courts. 



People vs. Rontey, 21 N. Y. St. R. 174, 4 N. Y. 



Supp. 235, 117 N. Y. 624. 



A physician's description is in itself no 



defense if the druggist has no license. 



Druggists' cases, 85 Tenn. 449. 



Liquor case, 37 Am. R. 284. 



In Georgia it has been held that whis- 

 key is not a drug. The Court said : 

 " We are old-fashioned and perhaps ig- 

 norant of the expansion of many words 

 in modern use, amongst them the word 

 ' drug.' It carries along with it an idea 

 inseparable from it, of something re- 

 pulsive, nauseous — at which the gorge 

 heaves. Whiskey, on the contrary, is 

 inviting, exhilirating." 



Strange language from a sober Court ! 



It was also urged that goods hard to 

 sell are often called a drug, and, there- 

 fore, to call whiskey, proverbially so 

 easy to sell, a drug, would be in the 

 language of the Court, " a palpable mis- 

 nomer." 



Gault vs. State, 34 Ga. 533. 



I hardly think that Brother Roosevelt 

 would admit the force if such a learned 



