THE ALUMNI JOURNAL, 



291 



argument to dissuade him from his 

 current crusade. One who prepares and 

 sells drugs for medicinal purposes has 

 been held to be a druggist. 



Anderson vs. Commonwealth, 9 Bush 571. 



It has been asked whether a proprietor 

 is liable for damages when his clerk com- 

 mits an error, the clerk being licensed. 

 From the cases already cited such would 

 seem to be the law. There is force, how- 

 ever, in the suggestion that when a 

 Board of Pharmacy issues a license to an 

 applicant and sends him forth into the 

 world as a duly qualified pharmacist, 

 such Boards of Pharmacy and their 

 licentiates, rather than an employer drug- 

 gist who relies upon such certificate of 

 qualification, should be held responsible 

 for the consequences of the ignorance or 

 unskillfulness of the employee. 



In State vs. Donaldson, 41 Minn. 74, 

 it was held that the sale of borax by one 

 not a pharmacist was not prohibited. 

 But in Cook vs. People, 125 111. 278, the 

 term " usual remedies " was defined as 

 not including quinine. 



These peculiarities must be relegated 

 to the language of the statute in question 

 in each case. 



Gwynn applied to Druggist Duffield 

 to compound a prescription calling for 

 rhubarb. The latter took belladonna in- 

 stead from a jar itself properly labeled. 

 Gwynn, standing by, put his finger in 

 it, took a small quantity from it and 

 asked, was that a proper dose. The 

 druggist answered affirmatively, Gwynn 

 took it and suffered. The Court held 

 he was guilty of contributory negligence 

 in himself taking it from the jar and ab- 

 solved the druggist. 



Moral, keep your fingers out of drug- 

 gists' jars ! 



Gwynn vs. Duffield, 61 Iowa 64, s. c. 47 Am. 

 Rep. 802, 66 Iowa 708, 55 Am. Rep. 286. 



If a druggist fills a prescription im- 



properly he cannot raise the defense that 

 the case itself was negligently treated. 

 Brown vs. Marshall, 47 Mich, 576, s. c. 41 Am. 

 Rep. 728. 

 A pharmacist had recommended a pre- 

 scription in good faith which had been 

 given another. The customer ordered it, 

 and the druggist furnished it, charging 

 only for the medicines and their com- 

 pounding. The customer sustained in 

 jury and sued the druggist, but the 

 Court held that he was not responsible. 

 Ray vs. Burbank, 61 Ga. 505, s. c. 34 Am. Rep. 

 103. 

 The safe course for a druggist when a 

 customer calls for a remedy, is to give 

 him what he may say he has been recom- 

 mended to take and so asks for, but not 

 to undertake himself to diagnose and 

 prescribe for the case. 



Where a druggist sells an article in it- 

 self harmless, but which in combination 

 with other articles becomes dangerous, 

 and is not informed that it is to be used 

 in such combination, he is not liable for 

 any damage which may result. 

 Davidson vs. Michels, 11 Allen (Mass.), 514. 



A druggist sold a deadly poison as a 

 harmless medicine to a man who bought 

 it to administer to another who died after 

 taking it. His widow was held to have 

 a right of action against the pharmacist. 

 Morton vs. Sewell, 106 Mass., 143, s. c. 8 Am. 

 Rep., 298. 



The statute provided that il it should 

 be unlawful for any person not a register- 

 ed pharmacist to conduct any pharmacy 

 or drug store." 



It was held to be no defense that the 

 sales were made by a clerk who was a 

 registered pharmacist. 



State vs. Morton, 67 Iowa, 641. 



A policy of fire insurance covered 

 drugs and medicines, and provided that 

 it should be void ' ' if the insured shall 

 keep gunpowder, fireworks, saltpetre, etc' 

 It was held that this did not forbid the 

 keeping of saltpetre as a drug, but only 



