162 
LTABTLITY OF CARRIERS. 
post-mortem examination showed that “ death had^ resulted from arsenic taken in a 
diluted form, or what is called ‘corrosive sublimate ’ (sic!), and the jury returned a 
verdict of “ Accidentally Poisoned. 
CHARGE AGAINST A DRUGGIST FOR DISPENSING HYDROCYANIC ACID. 
A curious and interesting case has recently occurred at Worthing, in connection with 
which a summons was issued against a druggist “for having unlawfully so prussic 
acid to a stranger, in a bottle not labelled poison.” 
It appears that a young man named Ansel Johnson, who was assistant to Mr. ^rotcn, 
chemist, of Edgware Road, London, having been left in charge of the business w 1 e is 
employer was absent in the country, went away, taking all the money he cou ge , a 
the same time sending a telegram to Mr. Crotch to return immediately. He was nex 
heard of at Worthing, where he obtained some hydrocyanic acid, with wnic e was 
accused of attempting to commit suicide. This hydrocyanic acid was supplie o nn 
by a druggist at Worthing, and hence two charges were laid before the magistrates,— 
one against the young man for attempting to commit suicide, which, howevei, was no 
perpetrated, for the poison was not taken, and the other against the druggist a or in S 
for selling the poison, as was supposed, in violation of the provisions of the Pharmacy 
A.ct, 
The evidence adduced before the magistrates went to show that the young man 
Johnson took a prescription to the druggist, Mr. Berry, ordering 3 drachms of bcheele s 
hydrocyanic acid mixed with two ounces of rose water, for a lotion. 1 he prescription 
was written in the usual way, purporting to be for Mrs. Newton, and had the initials ot 
a London physician. The medicine was dispensed as ordered. It was put into an an¬ 
gular bottle to which the name of the druggist was attached, together with a label 
indicating that it was for external use, and the prescription was copied into a book kept 
for that purpose. . ... , , , 
On behalf of Mr. Berry, it was contended that in thus dispensing the medicine he had 
fulfilled all that the Act required, and in support of this representation reference was 
made to an article in the ‘Pharmaceutical Journal,’ in which the requirements ol t e 
law in such cases were explained, also to a letter which had been received from the la e 
President of the Pharmaceutical Society to the same effect. , 
On the other side it was stated that the prescription, although purporting to have 
been written by a physician, was really in that respect a forgery, as it was written y 
the young man Johnson, who intended to use the medicine for an unlawful purpose. 
After hearing the evidence, the magistrates retired to consider the case, and in a ou 
half an hour the Chairman, on their return to the Court, said the Bench had decided to 
take time to consider the case. Notice would be given to all parties when their de¬ 
cision would be given. ..... . , . , 
On Wednesday, the 25th of August, the magistrates gave their decision, m which 
they imposed a tine of ten shillings on Mr. Berry for each of the two offences with whic 
he was charged. 
LIABILITY OF CARRIERS. 
Warren v. The Great Western Railway Company. 
A case of some interest to chemists has been tried at Bristol before Mr. Justice Lush. 
The plaintiffs were Messrs. A. and J. Warren, wholesale druggists of that city, and the 
action was brought to recover compensation from the railway company for not properly 
carrying a certain carboy of essence of lemon. It was proved that the carboy was 
securely packed with straw in a box when delivered to the company. On its arrival the 
neck of the carboy was found to be depressed, as from a violent blow, and the essence, 
120 lbs., with the exception of about 7 lbs. or 8 lbs., had been lost. The defence was, 
that the carboy was improperly packed, but this was not sustained ; and ultimately 
the jury found for the plaintiffs, damages £44. 
