348 
PYRETIC S A.LTS. 
' The case was brought on again on Tuesday, December 3rd, and an affidavit by Dr. 
Stevens was produced confirming the truth of the statement that out of 465 cases of 
cholera in Coldbath Fields treated by him on the saline principle, 461 had recovered, and 
stating that he was in the habit of recommending plaintiff’s pyretic saline as a valuable 
preparation, and that it was the same preparation as that referred to in a medical work 
published by him, as used by him successfully in cholera and fever cases at Coldbath 
Fields, in the West Indies, and elsewhere. In reference to his use of the words “ Royal 
Letters Patent,” the plaintiff stated that it was not used for the purpose of securing any 
advantage to himself, and that he had never, in any of his advertisements, handbills, or 
wrappers, claimed to be the patentee, or in any way represented it as a patented article. 
For 25 years he had paid the Government duty on pyretic saline as a patent medicine 
until 1860, when he found it was of a class exempted from duty under the Act of the 
3rd of William IV. Having on his hands several thousands of the stopper labels (with 
“ Royal Letters Patent ” upon them), he had made use of them, as they bore his sig¬ 
nature, and to avoid waste. The great merits of “pyretic saline,” and its successful 
operation in cholera and fever cases in the East and West Indies, and on the coast of 
Africa, were also attested by numerous testimonials from colonial governors, magistrates, 
and others. 
Mr. Druce, Q.C., and Dundas Gardiner, for the plaintiff, submitted that the points 
that had occasioned any doubt in the plaintiff’s case were now sufficiently explained, 
and the truth of his statements confirmed ; and that the inadvertent use of the words 
“ Royal Letters Patent,” forming, as it did, no part of the title sought to be protected, 
was no ground for refusing reiief to the plaintiff, who had used the words without the 
smallest intention of representing his preparation as patented, or of conveying any false 
impression. 
Mr. Willcock, Q.C., and Mr. Cracknell, for the defendants, were not called upon. 
The Vice-Chancellor said that he was very sorry to be obliged to decide this case 
against the plaintiff. He was sorry, as the plaintiff had invented a preparation which 
seemed to have acquired considerable reputation, and had been found very useful, while, 
after the explanation given by Dr. Stevens, it would be very unreasonable for this Court 
to refuse relief on the ground of the statement upon the wrapper of the cure of that 
astonishing proportion of cholera patients in Coldbath Fields Prison. The statements 
made in advertisements of this nature were often of a very ridiculous character, but 
where they contained nothing absolutely false, they would be looked upon in the same 
way as the flowery panegyrics used by auctioneers. Finding, then, that the plaintiff’s 
statement as to the 461 prisoners was supported by Dr. Stevens, he the more regretted 
that he must refuse the plaintiff relief. He did not do so from any merits in the defen-, 
dant’s case; on the contrary, as he had before observed, he was struck with their de¬ 
merits. The plaintiff had appropriated to his preparation the term “ pyretic saline,” 
by being the first person to use the two words in combination, and apply them to a 
medical compound which had acquired a reputation in the market under that name, and 
as being of the plaintiff’s own manufacture solely. No one, until the defendant, had 
ever thought of using the term “pyretic saline” to denote any other preparation than 
that of the plaintiff, and it was a mere subterfuge in the defendant to call what he 
manufactured “pyretic salts” instead of “pyretic saline.” But for the use of the title 
“ Royal Letters Patent,” to which he had no right, he should, without hesitation, have 
granted the plaintiff an injunction. That defect, however, was fatal to his case. There 
was no patent for the preparation, and he had no right to represent to the public that 
there was. The use of the term was objectionable in two ways, as (1) it might deter 
other persons from endeavouring to manufacture, and (2) a higher price could be exacted 
from purchasers when they saw that the article was described as patented. The expla¬ 
nation given by the plaintiff of his use of these words (to save wasting labels which 
would otherwise have remained useless on his hands) was, he felt bound to say, not 
satisfactory. There must have been some object in using the words ; or, at all events, 
the law would presume the existence of some object in the absence of a better ex¬ 
planation than that given by the plaintiff. The motion must, therefore, be refused. 
