616 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[February 1, 1873*. 
was sufficient, otherwise the case must be proved in the 
ordinary way. 
Mr. ihorne said his client pleaded guilty, but, having’ 
regard to the whole of the circumstances, he hoped that 
a nominal fine of Is. and the costs would meet the case. 
He believed the only desire of the prosecution was to 
give the case publicity, in order that it might be known 
that Battle’s Vermin Killer was included in the poisons 
mentioned in the schedule. 
Mr. V alker asked if the package was labelled poison? 
Mr. Thorne replied that it was. 
Mr. AY alker remarked that he had been under the 
impression that the chemist himself was ignorant that 
the packet contained poison. The case seemed to be 
worse when it was patent by the label on the packet 
that the compound contained poison. 
Mr. Thorne said all poisons were not included in the 
Act. 
Mr. AValker asked if there were any poisons which 
could be sold without taking the address of the buyer? 
Mr. Thorne replied in the affirmative, stating that it 
was quite sufficient, as far as some poisons were con¬ 
cerned, simply to put down the name and address of the 
seller; his client supposed that the packet contained 
one ot those poisons. It was a patent medicine con¬ 
taining a compound. There were other things containing 
poisons in connection with which chemists were not 
obliged to follow the instructions of the Act, such as 
chlorodyne, for instance. 
Mr. AValker said it was evident that Battle’s Vermin 
Killer was added to the schedule." 
Air. ihorne replied yes, but at the same time che¬ 
mists and druggists were in perfect ignorance of the 
fact. 
Air. John Ford (magistrate) observed that the person 
who sold poisons ought to know the state of the law 
under which he sold them. 
Air. Thorne said, as far as the Act of Parliament was 
concerned, there could be no doubt that he had adhered 
to the same, but the schedule referred to had only been 
sent round to chemists and druggists since the case had 
occurred. 
Air. A\ r alker remarked that a chemist was a licensed 
person, and he ought to know the provisions of his 
license. 
Air. Thorne contended that his client could not tell 
wnat patent medicines were composed of, he not being 
an analytical chemist. With reference to all poisons 
which he. sold, he was very careful indeed, as might be 
seen by his books if the Bench thought proper to ex¬ 
amine the same. 
Air. AValker said the defendant was entirely guiltless 
of the death of the man AVoodward, but no doubt he 
sold me vermin killer in ignorance of the law. It was 
plain that the.Act must be obeyed, and that persons who 
sold the vermin killer ought to take the usual precautions 
required by the Act. . The defendant would be fined os. 
and the costs, that being the first offence ; for a second 
oflence he would be much more severely dealt with. 
Tartar Emetic administered in a Joke. 
At the Bradford Borough Court on Tuesday, January 
21st, John AVTight was charged with administering a 
poisonous drug to Annie Slater and another in a dram¬ 
shop m Iregate. It was proved in evidence that the 
prisoner was seen to take a packet out of his pocket and 
put part of the contents into two glasses of beer that 
were standing on the counter. A policeman was called 
in, and the prisoner given into custody, the beer and the 
powder remaining in the pocket being sent to an analy¬ 
tical chemist for examination. The prisoner said it was 
jalap, and that he only did it for a “lark.” 
Air. Rimmington, analytical chemist, said he had ex¬ 
amined the glasses of ale and the powder. It was tartar 
emetic, which would poison a person if taken in a large 
quantity. The powder would not make any difference 
either in the taste or appearance of the beer. It would 
depend upon the amount administered whether it would 
prove fatal or not. The powder was often used as an 
emetic for the purpose of making persons vomit. 
Annie Slater, a young woman residing in Great Cross- 
Street, said she went in with a friend to have a glass in 
the dramshop on Monday night, and the prisoner, who- 
was there, asked her to have a glass with him. She de¬ 
clined to do so, and he then asked her to drink with him.. 
She had no objection to that, and drank out of a glass 
which he handed to her. She remarked that it was- 
“ very funny beer,” and the prisoner said it was old 
beer. AVitness went out directly afterwards, and when 
she got outside she turned quite dizzy and felt a burning 
in her stomach. She had never seen the prisoner pre¬ 
viously. Her companion also drank of the ale. 
Air. Rimmington, recalled, said that he could not ac¬ 
count for the powder producing a burning sensation. 
It might nauseate the woman and make her feel sick 
and poorly for many hours. 
The witness Slater said that after she had drank the 
prisoner did so, but only put the glass to his lips and 
tasted. 
Air. Rimmington, in answer to the Bench, said that- 
half an ounce of the powder would poison a person, and 
possibly a drachm would. The label on the packet bore 
the name of a chemist at Eccleshill who was registered.. 
The powder ought not to be sold without a witness being- 
taken to the shop by the purchaser who knew the pur¬ 
chaser and the purpose for which it was required. 
The book of the chemist ought to show under what cir¬ 
cumstances it was sold. 
Air. Berry, for the defence, urged that the prisoner 
might have felt unwell and got the powder for himself. 
He had been foolish enough to ask somebody else to 
drink, which was a very improper thing to do ; but as to- 
putting it into two or three glasses, that was not done. 
He did not think that the prisoner intended to hurt any¬ 
body, and the fact that the prisoner had not known the 
woman before was sufficient to warrant the conclusion 
that there could not have been any animus on his part 
in administering the powder. It was a stupid practical 
joke, and that was all. 
Alderman Law said the prisoner would be remanded' 
until Saturday for the attendance of the chemist from. 
Eccleshill. 
Air. Berry : AVill you take bail ? 
Alderman Law: No, certainly not. 
Air. Berry said perhaps they would hear his grounds- 
for asking the question. The prisoner wa 3 a respectable 
man— 
Alderman Law: AVe shall not take bail. 
The prisoner was remanded until Saturday, and Air. 
Rimmington was requested to analyse the contents of 
the two glasses. 
On Saturday the prisoner was brought up on remand, 
when James Scott said the portion of powder put by 
the prisoner into the two glasses of ale was about as 
much as would cover a shilling. 
Dr. Rabagliati deposed that two grains of emetic 
tartar had been knov/n to prove fatal, although there 
had been recoveries from much larger amounts, probably 
half an ounce. A drachm would be considered a very 
dangerous dose indeed, and in medicine, in order to pro¬ 
duce emetic action, they gave one grain. There was, in 
his opinion, about six grains in the paper produced. In 
answer to Air. Alossman, Dr. Rabagliati said that if 
seven-tenths of a grain were divided into two parts and 
put into a glass, he should expect emetic action from 
any person drinking the beer; but should not apprehend 
dangerous consequences from such a dose. 
Mr. Rimmington, analytical chemist, said he had ex¬ 
amined the contents of the two glasses produced, and 
