July 27, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
77 
The Right to Use the Names “ Kalydou ’ 
and “ Odonto.” 
•Rowland v. Breidenbach. 
Before the Master of the Rolls , July 22nd. 
This Bill was filed in December, 1869, by Messrs. A. 
Rowland and Sons, of Hatton Garden, against the late 
Mr. Henry Breidenbach, of New Bond Street, claiming 
an exclusive right in the terms “ Macassar Oil, “ Kaly- 
dor,” and “Odonto,” as denoting articles manufactured 
by the plaintiffs under these respective names. The 
occasion of the suit was an advertisement inserted in 
the Times by the late Mr. Breidenbach, in December, 
1869, offering for sale a “ Christmas Box,” containing 
.32s. 9 d. worth of “ toilet luxuries ” for 12s., among such 
“ toilet luxuries ” being “ Macassarine oil,” “ Kalydor,” 
and “Odonto,” price Is. each. Upon the publication 
of this advertisement the plaintiffs filed the bilb end 
obtained an injunction ex parte, restraining Mr. Breiden¬ 
bach from using these terms, except as denoting articles 
manufactured by the plaintiffs. In March, 18 <0, this 
in] unction was dissolved on the application of Mr. Breid- 
-enbach, as reported in the Times of March 25th, 1870. 
Since then Mr. Breidenbach and the senior partner in 
the plaintiff’s firm have died. The suit was revived by 
the surviving partners against Mr. Breidenbach s repre¬ 
sentatives, and now came on to be heard with reference 
to the terms “Kalydor” and “ Odonto only, it being 
conceded that Mr. Breidenbach had infringed no right 
of the plaintiffs by his use of the term “ Macassarine 
oil.” The evidence was voluminous, no less than S9 
•affidavits, containing 900 folios, having been filed by 
the plaintiffs in support of their contention that they 
have acquired an exclusive right to the terms “Kaly¬ 
dor ” and “ Odonto.” 
Mr. Fry, Q.C., Mr. Day, Q.C. (of the Common Law 
Bar), and Mr. Bradford appeared tor the plaintiffs ; Mr. 
Southgate, Q,.C., and Mi’. Brooksbank for the defen¬ 
dants. 
The Master of the Rolls, who had taken time to con¬ 
sider his judgment, said he was satisfied that the terms 
“Kalydor” and “Odonto” had become puhlici juris. 
There was evidence of an article called “ Kalydor 
having been openly sold by as many as 36 tradesmen 
besides the plaintiffs since the year 1818, and there was 
similar evidence before the Court with respect to the 
article called “ Odonto.” In fact, any one then in court 
had as good a right as the plaintiffs to sell “ Kalydoi 
•or “Odonto,” provided he did not call it “ Rowdand s 
Kalydor” or “Rowland’s Odonto. 
Bill dismissed with costs.— Times. 
The Right of Scotch Physicians to Practise 
Pharmacy in England. 
A case of some considerable importance to the medi¬ 
cal profession recently came before Mr. Macnamara, the 
iud°'e of the Marylebone County Court. The question, 
divested of all technicality, was whether a member of 
the College of Surgeons in England, authorized to prac¬ 
tise as a physician by a diploma from the University of 
Edinburgh, but not qualified as a member of the Society 
of Apothecaries in London, could recover for medicines 
supplied without advice or visits. Mr. Macnamara de¬ 
cided that such a practitioner could not recover for medi¬ 
cine supplied which was not auxiliary to a surgical case, 
.although registered both as a surgeon and a Scotch phy¬ 
sician. Indeed, according to this decision, such a per¬ 
son is liable to penalties under the Apothecaries’ Act. 
Should this judgment be upheld by the superior court, 
it will make sad havoc of those who, practising undt-i 
Scotch or Irish degrees, affect the right to add the prac¬ 
tice of pharmacy to their other qualifications, although 
possessing no licence from the Society of Apothecaries 
in England. The medical graduates of the old univer¬ 
sities practically lay no claim to the practice of phar¬ 
macy ; the Fellows and Members of the College of 
Physicians in England are expressly forbidden it by 
their bye-laws ; the medical graduates of the London 
Universitv are excluded such practice by statute (the 
Medical Graduates Act, 1854); the Licentiates of the 
College of Physicians, who have the privilege of com¬ 
pounding and dispensing medicines for patients under 
their own care, being the single exception among En¬ 
glish medical men to the otherwise exclusive privileges of 
the Society of Apothecaries. Should this decision of the 
Marylebone County Court Judge have the effect of 
closing many of the present open surgeries maintained 
by other than those duly licensed to practise pharmacy, 
it would add greatly to the respectability of the profes¬ 
sion, and save much confusion in the public mind as to 
the relative qualifications of the different orders of the 
profession. 
The case referred to by Mr. Macnamara, viz. the 
Apothecaries’ Company v. Collins, reported in 4 Barne- 
wall and Adolphus, 604, was decided so far back as 
1 S3 3 . 
In giving judgment, Lord Denman (Chief Justice) 
sa iq—“Even English physicians would be included 
within the 20th section of the Apothecaries’ Act if there 
were not a special exception in their favour in the 29th 
section.” And Mr. Justice Littledale remarked ^be 
words would include all persons who have taken medical 
degrees, were it not for the 29th section, which sa’s es 
the rights of the two Universities of Oxford and Cam¬ 
bridge, the Royal College of Physicians, and the Rou al 
College of Surgeons. But the statute, by expressly ex¬ 
empting the two English Universities, does not exempt 
those of Scotland also. The Act applies to England 
and Wales only—Scotland is not in contemplation. 
Mr. Justice Parke observed—“ The duty of an apothe¬ 
cary as defined by section 5, is £ to prepare with exact¬ 
ness and dispense such medicines as may be directed for 
the sick by any physician lawfully licensed to practise 
physic by the President and Commonalty of the Faculty 
of Physic in London, or by either of the two Universi¬ 
ties of Oxford or Cambridge.’ A Scotch qffiy sician, 
continued his Lordship, “ is certainly not enabled oy 
the Act to perform this duty.” The whole contention 
now is, whether a Scotch physician can recover the price 
of medicines supplied by him qua medicines ; m other 
words, can he practise pharmacy, pure and simple, by 
furnishing medicines unconnected with medical atten¬ 
dance ? If not, he certainly exposes himself to penal¬ 
ties under the Apothecaries’ Act for affecting so to do ; 
and even though, as in the case before us, a mem ier 0 
the Royal College of Surgeons of England, he can only 
recover for medical attendance as auxiliary to a surgica 
case. 
Such a complication of conflicting interests, especiahy 
if the decision of the Marylebone County Court Judge 
should be affirmed by the superior court, seems at all 
events to demand further legislation, if only.by way ol 
simplifying and amalgamating the licensing bodies 
throughout the United Kingdom .—Medical Tunes and 
Gazette. 
BOOKS RECEIVED. 
A Handbook of Chemical Technology. By Rudolf 
Wagner. Translated from the Eighth German 
Edition, with extensive additions by William Crookes, 
S London : J. and A. Churchill. 1872. 
The Half-Yearly Abstract of the Medical Sciences. 
Bekm a Digest of British and Continental Medicine 
and of the Progress of Medicine and the Collateral 
Sciences. Edited by W. Domett Stone M D., 
F R.C.S. Vol. LV. London: J. and A. Churchill. 
1872. 
