chemist's liability for selling IMrROPER LOTION. 5'< 7 



him some which was totally unfit, and by the application of which his 

 mare was made useless. It appeared on the trial before Littlcdah J., 

 that the paintifF, thinking his mare required blistering, agreed with his 

 father that the latter should take her, have her blistered and properly 

 treated, and send her to grass in his own field. The father, who was 

 to be paid for the keep of the mare, bought from the defendant the 

 blistering ointment, which was applied by a man employed by himself, 

 to all four legs at once. The jury found that the plaintiff had not been 

 guilty of negligence, and gave him £32 damages. A new trial was 

 moved for on the ground that the contract was not properly stated in 

 the declaration, and also that the plaintiff himself was guilty of negli- 

 gence, as he had applied the ointment too severely. The Court of 

 King's Bench refused the rule, and thought that the contract was 

 described according to its legal effect. It was quite clear in law that 

 this was the son's contract. By the terms of the agreement between 

 the father and the son, the latter was liable for the price ; and if it had 

 been a credit transaction the chemist might have recovered from the 

 son, for the father purchased in the character of his agent. The Court 

 by no means assented to the proposition that the plaintiff was bound 

 to show that he himself is not chargeable with negligence before he 

 could impute it to the defendant. That formed no part of the issue he 

 was bound to prove. 



BlacTc v. Elliot was a very important action to recover damages for 

 the defendant's negligence and want of sJciJl i?i selling a sheej) /rash to 

 the plaintiff, which poisoned his sheep. The plaintiff was a large farmer 

 at Xew Heaton, in Northumberland, and he had recently purchased 

 the stock and taken a farm of about 1,000 acres at Burton, in addition 

 to his own. In July, 1858, he saw an advertisement in the "Berwick 

 Advertiser " headed " Important to farmers," and greatly recommend- 

 ing the defendant's " Celebrated sheep wash," for the destruction of 

 tick, lice, and vermin in sheep. Accordingly, on the 7th of August, 

 the plaintiff being at Berwick, ordered sufficient of this sheep wash to 

 wash 700 sheep. The wash w^as sold in powders ; and the defendant's 

 shopman told him he would require 14 of these powders — one powder 

 being sufficient for 50 sheep. The plaintiff ordered 15 powders, and 

 they were sent to his Burton farm. The direction on the powders was 

 that each powder was to be mixed with three or four gallons of boiling 

 water, and that then this mixture, with 4lbs. of soft soap, was to be 

 diluted with 45 gallons of cold water, and this would make a wash for 

 50 sheep, in which they were to be dipped. The direction was impli- 

 citly followed, and on a Saturday in August 869 sheep were dipped 

 in this wash — 60 of them being dipped in it much diluted, as they had 



p p 



