460 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[December 7,1872. 
red ” at all. The question then arose as to the 
amount of oxide of antimony that should he present. 
Professor Redwood had suggested that, if an article 
could he obtained having the colour of the commercial 
article and the official proportion of oxide, that would 
be the best that could be employed. No doubt that Mr. 
Moss could, by continuing his researches, produce such 
an article. The Professor rose, however, rather to speak 
on the chemical aspect of the matter. It was well known 
to chemists that the so-called pentasulphide of antimony 
and the pentasulphide of arsenicum were by no means 
definite chemical substances. By adding an acid to a 
sulphantimonatc, they necessarily obtained a precipitate 
containing proportions of sulphur and metal which cor¬ 
responded with the true pentasulphide, but it by no 
means followed that it actually was a true pentasulphide. 
In the case of pentasulphide of antimony the mere ap¬ 
plication of a temperature such as would be sufficient to 
volatilize sulphur gave a sublimate of that clement and 
a residue of a tersulphide. The action of hydrochloric 
acid also was to give not pentachloride of antimony, as 
might be expected, but terchloride. Then the penta¬ 
sulphide of arsenicum gave up two-fifths of its sulphur to 
dilute solution of ammonia. Hence chemists would 
look with considerable interest to Mr. Moss’s paper, 
with the object of ascertaining whether it threw 
light upon the constitution of the so-called penta- 
sulphiaes of antimony and arsenicum. Well, they first 
came across the observation that bisulphide of carbon, 
which was an excellent solvent of sulphur, took away 
two-fifths of the sulphur from the pentasulphide of 
antimony and left the tersulphide. Here was a fact 
which seemed to indicate that the article was not a true 
pentasulphide. On the other hand, the tersulphide 
thus obtained contained no moisture, which certainly was 
a somewhat characteristic component of this substance 
when precipitated from a solution of the ter-com- 
pounds of antimony. Professor Redwood had remarked 
that there w r as room for more pharmaceutical research in 
connection with this subject; and he (Professor Attfield) 
would suggest there was also a good deal of room for 
more chemical work in the matter. 
Mr. Marti xi) ale remarked that this article would be 
much better expunged from the Pharmacopoeia, especially 
as it/was used almost entirely for one preparation. 
The President announced that the next meeting 
would be held on the 5th of February. 
iparliamentsrs mttr fitto frcmiimgs. 
Poisoning by Chloral Hydrate. 
On Wednesday evening, November 27th, Mr. C. J. 
Carttar, held an inquest at Greenwich, concerning the 
death of Mr. David Gower Silva, who was found dead in 
his bed on the previous Monday morning. 
_ Mrs. Silva said the last time she saw him alive was at 
eight o’clock on Sunday evening. About six o’clock 
in the evening ho went out to Mr. Part, a chemist, 
in Church Street. He had been in the habit of 
going there, but not during the last three months, for 
the purpose of obtaining sleeping draughts. At a quar¬ 
ter to twelve the same night she went upstairs to bed, 
and seeing deceased, as. she thought soundly asleep, 
in order not to disturb him she slept in another room. 
The next morning she found him lying in the same 
position and quite dead. 
In answer to questions, Mrs. Silva said the deceased 
had an empty phial in his right hand and another empty 
phial was found near him. On Saturday last the de¬ 
ceased sent his son to Mr. Part for a sleeping draught, 
but he came back and said that Mr. Part was then very 
busy and could not make it up, and that as his father (the 
deceased) had already had one draught he did not want 
another then. The deceased insisted upon the servant 
girl going for a draught. The deceased took this- 
draught, and slept until eleven o’clock on Sunday 
morning. 
Mr. Edward James Part, chemist, of Church Street, 
Greenwich, said about two years since the deceased 
came to him and wanted a sleeping draught, which 
he prepared of laudanum. He made a second 
draught of laudanum, but the deceased complained 
that they were not strong enough, and witness 
then prepared a draught containing 20 grains of 
hydrate of chloral, with a compound of cardamoms. 
This was witness’s own prescribing. Witness afterwards 
found deceased was suffering from excessive drinking, 
and he had prepared him many draughts, increasing the 
strength at deceased’s request, up to 100 grains of hy¬ 
drate of chloral. On some occasions, when deceased sent 
for the draughts, he had sent him merely coloured water 
instead. On Friday last the servant of the deceased 
came for a draught, and witness prepared one containing 
80 grains of the hydrate of chloral. The next morning 
the deceased came in as usual, and said it was no use 
sending him a draught under 100 grains. The draughts 
given on Saturday contained each 100 grains, and at that 
time and also about a year ago, he expressly cautioned 
deceased as to the taking of the draughts. 
This being the whole of the evidence, the Coroner said 
that there was no doubt that death resulted from taking 
the poison named. The questions for the jury were, 
whether the same had been taken in mistake, or with 
any wilful intent. They would also probably consider 
the propriety of selling poison in such quantity. With 
regard to the serving of the deceased with two draughts 
on the Sunday evening, he (the Coroner) did not view 
that fact as some of the jury appeared to do, because a 
bottle specifying a “sleeping draught” would be sup¬ 
posed to be for one taking; but he did think that the 
bottles ought to have contained a label bearing the word 
“poison,” because a bottle might have found its way 
into the hands of another person than whom it was in¬ 
tended for. 
After a short consultation, the jury returned a verdict 
“ That deceased died from the effects of an overdose of 
hydrate of chloral, taken in ignorance of its fatal effects.” 
The Coroner then called Mr. Part forward, and said it 
was the unanimous wish of the jury that he should 
caution him against selling poison in such a quantity, the 
danger of which he knew. Referring to the new Licen¬ 
sing Act, he observed that a publican was held respon¬ 
sible if he supplied a drunken person ; and in the case of 
serving poison to a person suffering as deceased, greater 
caution should have been taken. He hoped the present 
inquiry would act as a caution in the future. 
Mr. Part said there had never before been any mis¬ 
take in conducting his business, and the draughts would 
not have been prepared but through the deceased urging 
him, and his promise that he w r ould be careful in not 
taking both draughts served to him on Sunday evening. 
—Kentish Mercury . 
[*** In reference to the comments upon this case 
whichjappear in the Lancet and Medical Times and Gazette , 
we must remark that the latter journal is so far in error 
that chloral hydrate is not included among the poisons 
enumerated in Schedule A of the Pharmacy Act, 1868.— 
Ed. Pharm. Journ.] 
In consequence of the great length of the report of 
the Society’s proceedings, we are compelled to defer the pub¬ 
lication of several communications. 
Communications, Letters, etc., have been received from 
Messrs. J. J. Nicholson, J. A. Clark, Brown, Pickup, Bland, 
Crundall, Fitzhugh, Bennett, Bruce, Laird, Brown, Bascler, 
Burnett and Co., Lord, M'Master and Hodson, M‘Neil, 
Symes, Jones, Watson, Crozier, Baildon, Young, Batting. An 
Associate, Justitia, A Chemist, Excelsior, Proctor Jones, 
Cecil, Batura, Persevero, Agitator, Z. Y. Z., A. P. S. 
