VoL. i., No. 1 THE CHEMIST AND DRUGGIST OF AUSTRALASIA. 
17 
Shackell V. Watson. 
In the Melhonrne County Court on November 18, Mr. 
Shackell, chemist and estate agent, of Coburg, sired the Kev. 
T. Watson for £250 damages for slander, Mr. Bryant for the 
defendant, who is a minister of the C.hurch of England at 
Coburg, said that he had the pleasure of informing the court 
that the case was settled, and that his client had instructed 
him to say that, whilst denying the allegations made, namely, 
that he had said that Mr. Shackell was a rogue and swind* 
ler, he publicly expressed regret at using any ivords which 
might have been interpreted to convey the allegation, and that 
he unreservedly withdrew any such expressions. With the 
consent of counsel on the other side, he (Mr. Bryant) asked 
that the case should be struck out. Mr. Hood, who with Mr. 
Duffy, appeared for the plaintiff, accepted the apology and 
agreed to the case being struck out, the defendant having 
made a satisfactory settlement by pajung all costs. His 
Honour Judge Quinlan, who presided at the court, said that 
he thought the settlement was a very sensible one, and con- 
gratulated the plaintiff on his readiness to accept the apology. 
The case was then struck out. 
Hop Bitters Trade Marks. 
In the Sydney Sui>reme Courts, on December 11, before His 
Honor the Primary tludge sitting in Equity, Mr. A. H. Simpson 
moved on short notice, on behalf of the Hop Bitters Company, 
for an injunction against John B. Cleary. Mr. Walker, who 
appeared for the defendant, asked for an adjournment. The 
plaintiffs had tiled their claim on November 24, and had only 
asked for an injunction on December 8. 
Mr. Simpson said the plaintiffs had had some difficulty in 
getting up their affidavit. Their case was that the defendant 
having wilfully used certain labels and bottles of the plaintiff’s, 
had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment, under the 
criminal provisions of the Trade Marks Act. As soon as he 
got out of gaol, he had re-commenced the sale. 
Mr. Walker said the defendant had been j>rosecuted for 
using a label which was different from that now put upon the 
bottle. 
His Honor ordered the case to stand over for a week. 
On December 18, Mr. A. H. Simpson again moved for an 
injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing the 
plaintiff’s trade mark, and also from using counterfeited 
labels, which are imitations of the plaintiffs. He was also 
using the plaintiff’s bottles, with their name blown into the 
glass. 
Mr. Wallace, who appeared for the defendant, stated that 
square bottles were used generally, and some of these turned 
out to be the plaintiffs. He submitted that all the necessities 
of the case would be met if the defendant kept an account 
until the hearing. 
His Honor said he thought that he ought to grant the 
injunction until the hearing. The fact of some of the 
plaintiff’s own bottles being used, was an indication that the 
defendant intended to deceive the public into believing that 
the bottles contained plaintiff’s manufacture. Although there 
were some small differences in the make-up, such as the 
■covering of the plaintiff’s marks on the glass with a label, 
there was nothing to prevent a person from being deceived 
when he asked for hop bitters, meaning the plaintiff’s article, 
unless he brought a genuine bottle with him for the purpose 
of comparison. The defendant had said that the case would 
be met if an account were kept, but the plaintiff submitted 
that there would be no guarantee that any profits when ascer- 
tained would be forthcoming ; whereas the plaintiffs were put 
under an undertaking to abide damages in the event of the 
injunction being found to have been obtained without reason. 
He thought the agents of the iffaintiff company, Messrs. 
Montefiore, Metcalfe, and Co., should give the undertaking, 
and security for £100 costs. He would grant the injunction 
on those conditions. 
In a similar motion against Keary, the plaintiff asked that 
the matter might stand over as there was some chance of the 
defendants submission. On December 18, it was announced 
that he had submitted. 
Adulteration of Milk. 
In Victoria a curious deadlock has been caused by judicial 
decisions. It is stated concisely in ihQ Melbourne Herald '. — 
Some months ago the Health Inspector for the City of CoUing- 
wood prosecuted a young man, the driver of a milk cart, for 
selling milk which upon being analysed turned out to be 
about half milk and half water. The defendant was con- 
victed, and fined £20 and costs. He appealed to the Court 
of General Sessions. The case came before Judge Trench, 
who held that the oinier of the milk, not the driver of the cart, 
should have been jn’oceeded against. Upon that ground his 
Honor quashed the conviction. Soon after the inspector pur- 
chased some samples of milk from a young man who said that 
he was in the employment of a Mr. Mitchell, who resided at 
Northcote, and that the milk belonged to that person. The 
samples were subsequently analysed by Mr. Erederick Dunn, 
and w’ere found to contain nearly fifty per cent, of added 
water. Mr. Mitchell was summoned to the Collingwood 
Court. The adulteration was clearly proved, but the prosecu- 
tion failed to xu'ove that Mr, Mitchell ican the oicner of the milk. 
The complaint was dismissed with costs. Since then the 
inspector has purchased other sami^les, which turned out to 
be adulterated, and not knowing what course to adopt, he 
wrote to the Collingwood City solicitors, Messrs. M‘Kean and 
Leonard, for advice. These gentlemen pointed out that 
although the judge held that the person who owns the milk 
must be sued, not the person who sells it; this is evidently 
erroneous. If this were done no conviction could be obtained. 
It could not be shown that the man who got the milk to sell 
did not put water in it, and sold a few gallons extra and 
pocketed the money. The owner might say he gave the man 
milk unwatered, and that he (the owner) is not answerable for 
the fraud of his man, and that he did not sell adulterated 
milk. Or he might say he told his man to get ten gallons 
from a neighbor, as he was short, and he may have watered 
it. How then could he be liable? 
No further action has at present been taken in the matter. 
At Maryborough, Queensland, on December 5, a milkman 
was fined £5 5s. including costs, for selling adulterated milk. 
He had two supplies, one for general use, the other, a smaller 
one, specially for the inspector. On December 8, three others 
were fined, two £5 and one £6 and costs. One offender 
pleaded that he had only iced the milk. 
M.A.NUFACTURE OF CaERON BISULPHIDE. 
At the Eootscray Court, Victoria, on November 26, before 
Messrs. Alley, P.M., and Bowley, J.P., the Melbourne Carbon 
and Chemical Company were charged with unlawfully estab- 
lishing an offensive manufacture, that of bisulphide of 
carbon, without the consent, in writing, of the local Board of 
Health. 
There was not the usual conflict of evidence. Mr. Geo. 
Creighton, manager of the works, adduced himself and his 
family of ten, all living close to the works, as proof that they 
did not make the neighbourhood unhealthy. 
Mr. J. C. Newbery, officer of the Board of Health, and Mr. 
C. R. Blackett both admitted that, as carried on, the works 
were not injurious, though they might be disagreeable. 
It came out in evidence that the neighbouring pyrites works 
had been allowed to use the company’s shaft for the discharge 
of their fumes, and that a report had got abroad that the 
works were dangerous, and might cause an exjilosion. 
Mr. Alley said he thought the prosecution had been some- 
what misled. There was no case. He would therefore dismiss 
it, without any order as to costs. 
Charge of Arson. 
At the Brisbane Police Court on December 8, Kate Gaw- 
thern was brought up, on remand, charged with having set 
fire to the Redhill branch shoj) of Mr. Jas. Wm. Ayscough, 
chemist, Petrie-terrace. The iirisoner had visited Mr. Ays- 
cough’s shop at Petrie-terrace on December 4 in a very excited 
state, and had charged him with poisoning her husband, to 
whom he had supplied medicine. Chas. Henry Howes, 
apprentice, proved that the shop at Redhill was safe when he 
closed it at 10 p.m. on December 4. Not long after the doer 
was seen to be on fire. The evidence of neighbours con- 
nected with the fire, a w'oman dressed in black, but not other- 
wise identified. The ground near where she was sitting 
was found wet with kerosene, and paper saturated with the 
same was found by the door when the flames broke out. The 
defendant was again remanded till December 15. On that 
date the Bench decided that there was not sufficient evidence 
to connect her with the crime, and she was discharged. 
