A 'gust 3, 1372.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
95 
The jury returned a verdict that the deceased died 
from the effect of poison administered by her mother. 
The foreman expressed the opinion of the jury that 
Battle’s Vermin Powder should be classed among poisons, 
and the sale of it placed under greater restriction. 
The coroner said that as he observed previously 
the powder came within the 17th section of the Act of 
Parliament, and the sale of it ought to be conducted 
\mder the regulations and restrictions provided for the 
sale of poison. If any case of a similar description 
should come before him after this, he should deem it to 
be his duty to direct the prosecution of the druggist, for 
what, he thought, was an offence under the Act of Par¬ 
liament. 
Suicide by Laudanum. 
On Monday, July, 2‘2nd, an inquest was held at Toot¬ 
ing upon the body of Charles Messent, veterinary surgeon. 
It appeared that the deceased, who had lost his temper 
through some domestic occurrence, was seen to go into 
the surgery; presently afterwards he came out and 
wished his family good-bye, saying he had “ done it 
now\” They did not believe he had poisoned himself, as 
he was in the habit of saying so to frighten them. 
Shortly afterwards he said that he had swallowed half 
an ounce of laudanum, and as he became insensible 
medical assistance was obtained, but he died the same 
evening. A verdict of suicide whilst of unsound mind 
■was returned.— Wandsworth and Battersea Times. 
Action for Payment for the Suffly of Afparatus 
and Chemicals to a Class. 
On Thursday, July 25, in the Sheffield County Court, 
Mr. Harrison, pharmaceutical chemist, brought an 
action against the Committee of the Mechanics’ Insti¬ 
tution in Sheffield, to recover £8. Is. 2|d., for chemicals 
and apparatus supplied to the chemistry classes in con¬ 
nection with the institution. The items extended from 
1870 to 1871. The plaintiff formerly acted as lecturer 
to some chemistry classes then existing at the Mechanics’ 
Institution, and as such he supplied a quantity of che¬ 
micals and apparatus, which were the subject of the 
action. In support of his claim he relied upon two 
resolutions passed by the committee. The first was 
agreed to on the 29th of June, 1869, and was to the fol- 
lowing effect: “ That the committee provide Mr. 
Harrison with a room for the purpose of establishing a 
chemistry class in connection with the science and art 
department, Mr. Harrison to receive the money 
granted by that body for successful students, he 
providing all materials, etc., required.” The second 
xesolution was dated the 21st of August, 1870, and 
was to the effect that Mr. Harrison continued to 
conduct the science classes on the same terms as 
stated in the resolution of the 29th of June, with the 
exception that the committee provide the apparatus 
as soon as practicable, and to the extent they considered 
desirable. The plaintiff contended that the word “ appa¬ 
ratus ” included chemicals, and that he supplied w r hat 
was required for the classes under the impression that 
the committee would repay him. The case for the 
defendants was that they relied upon the two resolutions, 
and that they never heard of any claim whatever from 
Mr. Harrison until they refused to give him £5 for 
each class, which he was to conduct during the session 
of 1871. The claim, it was said, was not made until 
eight months after the last class had ceased to exist, 
.and that when it was made it came upon the com¬ 
mittee quite by surprise. His Honour said he must 
.nonsuit the plaintiff. The resolution of August, 1870, 
was that “ the committee were to provide the apparatus 
as soon as practicable, and to the extent they considered 
desirable.” From that it was clear there was no con¬ 
tract between the parties that the plaintiff was to pro¬ 
vide anything, and the defendants to pay for it. The 
resolution showed that the committee were to be the 
judges of what was w r anted; and that they were 
to get what was wanted. It was clear the plaintiff 
found the chemicals and found the apparatus; but it 
ought to be proved clearly to him (his Honour) that he 
did so on the understanding that he ought to be paid for 
it. Some arrangement of the kind ought to be proved. 
No such arrangement, however, had been proved. It 
seemed to have been left on the understanding that the 
committee were to pay for the chemicals and apparatus. 
But that did not establish a contract to pay, nor did 
it establish a state of things from which an implied 
contract arose.—Mr. Clegg (who appeared for the defen¬ 
dants) asked for costs; but his Honour refused the appli¬ 
cation, saying that it was not a case in which he should 
grant costs. Mr. Clegg observed that the plaintiff had 
been paid for what he had done and supplied, by the sum 
which ho received from the Science and Art Depart¬ 
ment.—The plaintiff denied that that was so, and said 
all he received during the last year he taught the classes 
was £2.—His Honour expressed the opinion that the 
plaintiff supplied the chemicals and apparatus, believing 
that he was warranted in doing so by the first resolu¬ 
tion, but there was nothing whatever in that or the 
subsequent minute which entitled him to be paid. 
Excise Prosecutions. 
A case was recently reported trom Exeter (ante p. 17) 
of a chemist having been fined for keeping a male ser¬ 
vant without a license, the said “ male servant ’ being 
an errand boy, ten years old, whom a Revenue officer 
had detected helping his fellow-servant by brushing 
some shoes. We learn that since then another fine has 
been inflicted by the Exeter magistrates, the victim again 
being a chemist and druggist. 
Pharmacopcea Germanica. —Berolini, apud Rudolphum 
de Decker, 1872. 
A change similar to that which was made in this 
country in 1864, when the British Pharmacopoeia was 
published, has now been effected in Germany by the 
publication of the Pharmacopoea Germanica. Hitherto 
several of the German States have had Pharmacopoeias 
of their own, and no one of these has had authority 
throughout the Confederation. This subject has been 
under consideration for some years, and^ at the instiga¬ 
tion of the Pharmaceutical Societies of North and South 
Germany, with a view to the subsequent adoption of an 
authorized German Pharmacopoeia, a work was provi¬ 
sionally issued in 1867, under the title of Pharmacopoea 
Germanim, which was submitted to the governments of 
the German States for examination, and, if approved of, 
for public use. 
After the establishment of the North German Confe¬ 
deration, the government of Mecklenburg-Schwerin re¬ 
ferred to the Federal Council the introduction by autho¬ 
rity of a general Pharmacopceia, and on the 19th Dec., 
1868, it was decreed that medical men and pharmacists 
should be appointed to prepare such a work. They met 
on the 28th of May, 1869, and decided that both the 
Pharmacopoea Borussica and Pharmacopoea Germanim 
should be used as the basis of the new work, but they 
also determined to consult medical and pharmaceutical 
authorities throughout the Confederation with reference 
to its extent and construction. The proceedings were 
interrupted by the late war, but on the establishment of 
the German Empire they were resumed. 
By a decree of the Federal Council issued on the 2Jtn 
of April, 1871, a new commission, including representa- 
