Ill 
DEFENCE FUND. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—May I request the favour of your inserting the following note, and re¬ 
marks in reference to the fund now forming for the protection of the innocent 
defendants in the recent suits in Chancery ?— 
“ Gentlemen,—By the request of the committee, I beg to enclose you a list of 
subscribers to the Defence Fund for your favourable consideration. 
“ Oblige me by returning it at your earliest convenience. 
u I remain, yours obediently, W. Twinberrow. 
“2, Edwards Street , Portman Square, IV., August 1G, 1865.” 
The above, with the list of subscribers, has been forwarded to several of our 
brethren, and liberally responded to, but one or two of our wholesale friends tell 
us that the defendants ought to have submitted to the Chancery suits, and then 
have proceeded against Mr. Rimmel for costs. I am desirous of stating tliau 
the form of suit is such as to leave the defendants no remedy, or at the utmost 
but a very doubtful remedy against Mr. Rimmel, so that, to settle and leave 
damages was impracticable. Now, I think, if they will consider for one moment 
the enormous expense that would be incurred by more than 500 separate double 
suits, in some instances against those who really cannot afford it, they will.come 
to the conclusion that the course pursued has been the right one, and had it not 
been through the decision of an influential meeting held on July 22nd, when 
it was agreed that the then several actions should be resisted, perhaps 500 or 
more retailers could by this time have been in the same predicament as the pie- 
sent defendants; but I can congratulate the retail trade that all our wholesale 
friends were not of the same way of thinking, but have most handsomely con¬ 
tributed to the fund, which at some future time, I hope, will be made known to 
the trade generally. I remain, your obedient servant, 
W. Twinbekrow, Treasurer. 
LET TEE FROM MR. RIMMEL. 
TO THE EDITOR OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—In the article contained in your last number, respecting Mr. Betts’s 
numerous prosecutions against retail venders of articles covered with metallic 
capsules, you say that I stated at the meeting of the Pharmaceutical Society 
that the French capsules used by me had been made by Betts’s process since 
the expiration of his French patent. Ihis is a slight error, and you will per¬ 
haps allow me to rectify it, as it might otherwise prejudice the case now pending 
between Mr. Betts and myself. I merely said that they might have been made 
by his process, but that I had no means of knowing it, the appearance of tin or 
tinned capsules being perfectly similar, and there being other ways of winning 
capsules than by Mr. Betts’s process. . _ , , 
As regards the proposed compromise of £1000, it is true that I ottered that 
sum to Mr. Betts to withdraw all actions, not only against myself but against 
any of my customers for selling my goods, for although I was not legally re¬ 
sponsible for them, I felt very anxious to protect them from any annoyance. It 
was perfectly understood with Mr. Betts’s representatives that this sum would 
cover all bills then issued (which I had been told numbered about a hundred) 
and prevent him from issuing any more on the same grounds. When, however, 
the deed was sent me for perusal, it did not contain these important provisions. 
I sent it back with the necessary alterations, but Mr. Betts refused to sign it, 
and so the matter ended. I then adopted the only course left open to me, 
