130 
COUNTER PRACTICE. 
organs were the same as in the previous case, and all were equally healthy and congested. 
Niicotine was again specially looked for in the viscera and their contents, but^ not a 
trace was detected; while, on the other hand, unmistakable evidence of the presence 
of prussic acid was again obtained. Jar 3, containing the viscera of the eldest boy on 
being opened smelt strongly of bitter-almond oil. The organs it contained were the 
same as in the other cases, but in this instance they were not healthy, beinp- not 
merely congested, but the actual seat of tuberculous disease. The stomach contained 
about mght ounces of tolerably digested food, with an acid reaction, and in this instance 
yielded more prussic acid than the other two put together. No nicotine was detected. 
Second examination of the fluids in the phials :-The liquids which flowed from the 
mouths of the two eldest boys yielded distinct evidence of prussic acid. Having arrived 
at the conclusion that each of these three children had received a poisonous dose of 
prussic acid, it yet remained for me to try and discover how the poison had been ad¬ 
ministered. Two . bottles and a glass had been found in the rooms ; these were next 
examined. Ihe six-ounce medicine bottle found in No. 8 was labelled “ Chalk, etc : 
a tablespoonful every three or four hours, as requisite.” It was about half full, and was 
found to contain prepared chalk, chloric ether, paregoric elixir, and water—being, in fact, 
an ordinary diarrhoea mixture. It contained no trace of either nicotine or prussic acid. 
The other medicine bottle, which was found in No. 6 , was also a six-ounce one, but of a 
different shape and colour, being flattened in form and bluish in tint. It had no label, 
and contained only a few drops of a strongly-smelling liquid, the chief part of which 
was oil of copaiva. This was the substance which gave to the bedroom its peculiar pun¬ 
gent odour. It contained neither nicotine nor prussic acid. 
From the result of the post-mortem examination and the chemical analysis, Dr. Har¬ 
ley came to the conclusion that the three children died from the effects of a mortal 
w +i pi Ti C aC i d ', 3 16 M ests used were those known among scientific men as the iron 
test the sulphur test, the silver test, and the vapour test—all of which yielded positive 
evidence of the presence of the poison. The inquirv was again adjourned * 
COUNTER PRACTICE. 
Jones v . Fay (Before Mr. Baron Pigott, August 1th). 
fh J!!himiff as f ins ^ a ch emist for malpractice. The declaration stated, that 
L^e 1 and AJP d /c : etained ^ C ™P Io ^ d the defendant for reward, to bestow care, dili- 
E’jff ri 1 ’ f • SUrge 1 ° n and apothecary, in and about the endeavouring to cure the 
plaintiff of a certain complaint and disorder under which he then laboured, but that the 
bf?easTn\ C Wof+bp h T S - e +-ff < ^ carelessl N S ne g:ligexitly, ignorantly, and unskilfully, that 
by reason thereof the plaintiff became, and was, and still is greatlv iniured in ’health 
and combtution The defendant denied his retainer and em/oyS as alleged. 
Serjeant Ballantme and Mr. Haselfoot were for the plaintiff - Mr. M Chambers 
Mr DBiuiian, and Mr. Willoughby were for the defendant 1 ’ ? 
land 'W co ‘ nm . on P““ ter y Islington, and the defendant a chemist at Kings- 
land, ihe plaintiff, who had twice been married, and had a large family had some 
toThc^erhv? a f\h Ck H what is Called “ P ainters ’ colic J M but how far from that time 
to the period of the matter now in question he had been in good health was a matter 
S^TtSW^ la f t ’ th ® Pontiff, having a pain in the bowels, went to the 
medicineMrnt fn fhP^ ^ u +I h0D ? alread ^ resorted on similar occasions) for a 
medicine , but in the lesult the plaintiff became very bad, and ascribing the result to the 
stance wjt b |' 0Ught the P resent action - Th e case for the plaintiff in sub- 
monor bnt t ^ + p i f T'f ° P a ! nters ’ colic , and for which castor oil would be 
Susly impaired hifi„ C Lt”kl 8 ™ 1 h “ m m “ C “ y > "' hich had C “ Sed Salivation and 
Pr °i Ve< ? that 1 he 1 r husband when he consulted the defendant was in 
and had w , orked regularly every day. She knew of his taking pills supplied 
t e defendant, she administered them herself every or every other night for a month • 
not ” S and that'h!w n S m any ° ther medical man, and he said “ certainly 
she ralS-d ! ¥r P* h + f band ™ und *” At the eud of the month, however, 
sne called in Mr. Iiend, who still attended him. 
