July, 1880. 
THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST. 
23 
To the Foreman — I thought the word “ ammonia” on the 
prescription was “ morphia.” I think it looks like it now. I 
should take it for morphia now. 
To Mr. Mitchell — The mistake occurred entirely in the 
reading of the prescription. 
To Mr. Hancock — I have received instructions from Mr. 
Turner, and I have had the necessary books to inform myself. 
I took the word on the prescription to be morphia. I felt sure 
it was written morphia. I referred to Squire’s Companion to 
the Pharmacopoeia. I found the dose to be from ten to sixty 
minims. The prescription I made up would allow fifteen 
minims to each dose. I thought this a simple prescription. 
I have previously put up such prescriptions with morphia as 
an ingredient. I had no doubt about the prescription or I 
would not have put it up. I had been instructed by Mr. 
Turner not to put up a prescription where I had any doubt 
about it. 
To Mr. Forbes — I only went a second time to Mr. Turner 
because I doubted Dr. Dobie’s right to give a prescription. 
The first time I went was to ascertain whether the “ L’aqua 
morphia acet.” was the same as “ L’aqua morphia and the 
second time was to inquire if Dr. Dobie had a right to prescribe, 
and to fetch Mr. Turner. 
To Mr. Hebb — I do not usually refer to books instead of to 
Mr. Turner. 
The Coroner — I would be quite right in referring to any 
recognised and proper authority. 
To Mr. Hancock — I never put up any prescription with the 
same quantity of morphia in it. This is why I referred to the 
book, from which I found, as I thought, that it was a proper 
quantity. 
William Johnson — I am the Government Analytical 
Chemist, residing at St. Kilda. On the 20th instant I re- 
ceived from Constable Williams one jar containing some 
viscera, one box of powders (produced), two four-ounce medi- 
cine bottles (one quite full, the other nearly so). The one 
nearly full is marked E.H., No. 1 ; the other is marked No. 2. 
I examined No. 1, and found the presence of morphia imme- 
diately. I made an estimate of the amount of morphia the 
bottle No. 1 would have contained when full. It was equal to 
three grains of acetate or muriate of morphia. A teaspoonful 
of such a mixture, which is the dose ordered to be given every 
four hours, would be equivalent to one-tenth part of a grain 
of either of the morphia salts I have mentioned. The bottle 
No. 2 is free from morphia. There is nothing remarkable 
about the powders. They consist of James’s powder and a 
little calomel. They are ordinary fever powders. I examined 
the viscera, and there I failed to find any trace of morphia 
whatever. 
To the Senior-constable — The dose given would contain the 
tenth part of a grain. Children of a few months old might 
be killed by the fifteenth part of a grain. There is a case 
on record where one-nineteenth part of a grain has proved 
fatal. The prescription produced could be read by an 
experienced hand. The word might have been read morphia, 
but the context would have enabled an experienced man to 
know that it could not be morphia. 
To the Foreman — Morphia is very seldom found in the 
stomach after death. It is only the portion left over after 
causing death that could be found. The portion that had 
caused death would be absorbed into the system, and never 
found at all. 
To Mr. Hancock — I cannot say how much had been taken 
out of the bottle, when I got it. Supposing it to have been full 
to a certain mark on the label when I got it, then half an 
ounce must have been taken out. That is, about four doses. 
If that quantity were given by carelessness, the mischief 
would have been greater. In that case there would be four- 
tenths of a grain taken; that would be a full dose for you 
or me. 
Rupert Pincott, medical practitioner — I have heard the 
evidence of Mr. Johnson. There is no doubt that the dose of 
morphia given would cause death. At the same time I am 
bound to inform the jury that the appearances left by mor- 
phia or opium are quite negative. In point of fact there are 
none. Having made th z post-mortem^ I say that had the child 
been brought to me by the police I should have said that it 
died from inflammation of the lungs, but now having heard 
the evidence of Mr. Johnson, I think it died from an overdose 
of morphia. 
To Mr. Mitchell — The child might have recovered from the 
inflammation of the lungs. The morphia would accelerate 
its death. I have seen the prescription given by Dr. Dobie. 
I read it thus — “ L’aqua ammonia acet.” I must say, and I 
regret to say it, as it is a reflection on my own profession, that 
it is shamefully written. Prescriptions are often illegible, but 
this is very shamefully written. Still, even a mere tyro should 
not take it for morphia, considering the size of the dose. I 
do not consider it fairly written as it stands, and I do not 
think any physician should send such a prescription to a dis- 
penser. 
This concluded the evidence. Mr. Heron recapitulated the 
circumstances attendant upon Mrs. Clark’s consulting Mr. 
Dobie and the preparation of the prescription. He said — “ I 
tell you fairly and distinctly that when the boy Moir came to 
Mr. Turner with those questions it was his duty to look care- 
fully at the prescription, and to see it properly made up. It 
was culpable neglect not to do so. Mrs. Clark has told you 
that the child was better before she gave it the physic, and 
Dr. Pincott has given his opinion that the death resulted from 
an overdose of morphia. You have to consider whether the lad 
Moir has been negligent or careless, and whether his careless- 
ness amounts to criminality. You must not imply manslaughter, 
but if you consider this lad committed manslaughter, you must 
find a direct verdict ; and he must have the fullest benefit of any 
doubt in your mind. I ask you to dismiss from your minds 
everything that you have heard outside these walls, and give 
your verdict solely on the evidence.” 
The court was cleared, and at one o’clock the jury gave the 
following verdict : — “ This jury find that the deceased, Joseph 
Joshua Clark, died by an overdose of morphia, the same being 
accidentally dispensed as medicine ; the said morphia being 
mixed in a prescription prepared by John Moir, apprentice to G. 
F. Turner, chemist, he making a mistake in reading morphia for 
ammonia in the first line of the prescription, which was illegibly 
written.” They added the following rider : — “ We consider 
that the said G. F. Turner is guilty of gross carelessness in 
not reading the prescription, and seeing the same properly 
dispensed.” 
To the Editor of The Australasian Supplement to the Chemist 
and Druggist . 
Dear Sir — Will you kindly allow me to say a few words on a 
subject broached by your correspondent “ Princeps” in your 
last issue ? 
As one of those who were present at the meeting held at the 
Clarence Hotel on the 17th of October last, to fix prices for 
patents and arrange other matters, I assented to the various 
proposals, with a full determination to carry them faithfully 
out ; and have done so up to the present time, so far 
as patent and proprietary medicines are concerned, and 
adhered, as near as I could, to the scale fixed for dispensing 
prescriptions. 
I thought the suggestion of a particular mark, to place over 
our stamp, to indicate the price charged for compounding a 
prescription a very good one, as it would enable us to see 
what had been charged elsewhere, and thus put us in a position 
to confute the too ready fib of parties, who, seeking only to get 
their medicine on the cheap, are not particular as to the means 
they use to do so. Well, Mr. Editor, for some time I acted as 
I thought others were doing, and duly marked, or caused to 
be marked, with the symbol agreed upon, every recipe dis- 
pensed at my establishment. But I, like “Princeps,” soon 
found that this practice was not carried on by my compeers ; 
for of all the prescriptions which have passed through my 
hands, from the date of the meeting until now, which had 
been dispensed at other places, only two bore the mark which 
had been agreed upon ; and now I own to having dropped the 
practice too, partly because I do not care to appear singular, 
and partly because it has been intimated to me by a brother 
chemist that there were some in the business mean enough to 
take advantage of the knowledge the mark gave them, to 
charge something under the price of the first dispenser, with a 
view of securing the future custom to themselves. 
I do not say that there are any members of our honourable 
calling so low down in the scale of rectitude as to do this, 
but it has certainly been intimated to me that there are ; and 
as other chemists do not care to give them the chance, neither 
does your humble servant, * Mel. Boracis. 
