696 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 1, 1S73» 
poses of tlie Act as being adulterated. These were fol¬ 
lowed by prosecutions against four leading tradesmen, 
named William Allen, James Coole, D. E. Gelling, and 
Messrs. E. and W. Stephen, for selling adulterated tea. 
Dr. Campbell Brown, of the Royal Infirmary, Liver¬ 
pool, tho public analyst for the Isle of Man, certified 
that the sample of tea purchased from Mr. Allen was 
adulterated and faced with mineral matter, Prussian 
blue, and other colouring matter, and was weighted with 
sand. 
For the defence, a witness named Gill, a shopman in 
Mr. Allen’s employ, was called, and deposed that the tea 
was purchased from Messrs. Peake Brothers, of London, 
and was sold in the same state as that in which it was 
received. 
Mr. D. D. Lewin, a merchant, who had been in the 
tea trade over thirty years, gave evidence that the colour 
of green tea was artificial entirely, and was coloured in 
China, and the very finest quality was slightly coloured. 
In the case of F. and W. Stephen, the certificate of 
Dr. Campbell Brown stated that the tea was adulterated, 
and was faced with mineral matter and Prussian blue. 
For the defence, Mr. D. D. Lewin gave similar evi¬ 
dence to that above quoted. 
In the case ag’ainst Mr. Coole, Dr. Brown’s certificate 
was exactly similar to that given in Stephens’ case. In 
the case against Mr. D. E. Gelling, the certificate was 
also similar. The cases having been held over for con¬ 
sideration. 
His Worship, the High Bailiff of Douglas, gave judg¬ 
ment on Saturday last. He said,—In the cases of the 
adulteration of green tea he was of opinion that they all 
more or less come under the operation of the Manx Act, 
which was very much more stringent than the Act 
passed in England, under which several cases have been 
dismissed, on the ground that the seller had no know¬ 
ledge that the articles he sold were adulterated. He 
could not find any reported cases in other parts of the 
kingdom in reference to the colouring of tea. Under 
the Manx Act the teas in these cases were, according to 
the evidence, undoubtedly adulterated, and he should, 
therefore, be compelled to fine the defendants ; but he was 
very desirous that the opinion of the Appellate Court 
should be had on the subject. He considered that the co¬ 
louring matter used in the tea was a sufficient adultera¬ 
tion of the material to justify him in fining the defen¬ 
dants, but he thought it very desirable that in case of an 
appeal the question should be argued before the Court 
whether, under the Manx Act, the party selling without 
a guilty knowledge of the fact that the articles were 
adulterated is liable to be fined. In those cases they had 
the evidence of the public analyst that the adulteration 
was effected by means of mineral substances and colour¬ 
ing matter. He saw no difficulty, therefore, in deciding 
that there was adulteration, but there appeared to be a 
difference in the four cases; that against the defendant, 
William Allen, was the worst, and it would be necessary 
to inflict a heavier penalty on him than on the others. 
The fact, however, appeared to bo that all the parties 
sold the teas as unadulterated—at least they gave no no¬ 
tice they were adulterated. There was no notice of adul¬ 
teration in the knowledge of the sellers. No doubt the 
defendants sold the teas as they got them, and, therefore, 
it was desirable that there should be an appeal, in order 
to decide whether, under such circumstances, the defen¬ 
dants were strictly liable. He would, therefore, draw 
the attention of the learned counsel to the fact that the 
law is different in England to what it is in the Isle of 
Man. In the case of William Allen, the certificate was 
as follows :—“ This sample is adulterated and faced with 
mineral matter, Prussian blue, and other colouring mat¬ 
ter, and is weighted with sand.” Under the circum¬ 
stances of this case the defendant was fined twenty shil¬ 
lings and costs, or twenty-one days’ imprisonment in 
default of payment. The certificates in the other three 
cases—those of James Coole, Daniel Edward Gelling 
and F. and W. Stephen—were all alike, viz., that the 
teas were “adulterated, faced with mineral matter, Prus¬ 
sian blue, and other colouring matter.” In each of 
those cases the penalty would be ten shillings and costs, 
or fourteen days’ imprisonment in default of payment.— 
Liverpool Daily Post. 
The Compounding op Prescriptions in Ireland. 
On February 22nd, an undefended action was heard in 
the Court of Queen’s Bench, Dublin, before Mr. Justice 
Barry and a special jury, in which the Governor and 
Company of the Apothecaries’ Hall sought to re¬ 
cover two penalties of £20 each, under the Apothe¬ 
caries Act, from the defendant, Mr. Robert Croskerry, 
of Portrush, for having practised the art and mystery of 
an apothecary, without having obtained the necessary 
certificate from the plaintiffs, authorising him to do so, 
as required by the Act of 31 George III. chap. 34. 
The defendant is the proprietor of two medical esta¬ 
blishments—one at Portrush and the other at Coleraine. 
He had lately presented himself for examination at 
Apothecaries’ Hall, but was unsuccessful. 
Mr. Purcell, Q.C. (with whom were Mr. Anderson and 
Mr. Kaye, instructed by Mr. G. II. Belas), in stating the 
case, said the defendant possessed the diploma of surgeon 
from the College of Surgeons, England, and the diploma 
from the College of Physicians, Edinburgh. His name 
did not appear on the medical register as an apothecary, 
and this was conclusive evidence under the Act. The 
offence was committed on the 16tli and 17th October last, 
when Mr. Croskerry compounded prescriptions. 
Mr. Thomas Hanley and Dr. Charles Henry Leet, 
Secretary to the Apothecaries’ Hall, having been exa¬ 
mined, a verdict was returned for the amount. 
His Lordship certified for a special jury, as it appeared 
the defendant had intimated that he would take the case 
to the House of Lords. 
The West Auckland Poisoning Cases. 
On Tuesday, February 25th, Mary Ann Cotton, who at 
W est Auckland on the previous Friday was committed 
to Durham . Assizes on a charge of having murdered 
Joseph Nattras3, a former lodger, was again brought up 
on a charge of having murdered her stepson, Frederick 
Cotton, aged ten, and Robert Robson Cotton, her own 
child, aged fourteen months. 
The evidence of the neighbours showed that the priso¬ 
ner would allow no one but herself to attend to the chil¬ 
dren, and one witness stated that although she made some 
beef-tea for Frederick Cotton after he had told her that 
he wanted something, still Mrs. Cotton would not allow 
him to have it. 
Dr. Scatterwcod, of Leeds School of Medicine, said he 
had no doubt whatever that the children died from ar¬ 
senical poison. 
A witness named Thomas Detchon, assistant to Mr. 
Owen, chemist, Newcastle, said, in January, 1869, a wo¬ 
man who called herself Mary Ann Booth, came with 
another woman to the shop and purchased three penny¬ 
worth of soft soap and arsenic. That woman was the 
prisoner, and he pointed her out among a dozen women 
at Durham Gaol. Ho saw hor photograph in the early 
part of November, and he pointed her out in the latter 
part of the same month. 
A witness named Jane Hedley, formerly a neighbour 
of the prisoner, said she had employed Mrs. Cotton to 
assist her in cleaning her house. On one occasion Mrs. 
Cotton recommended a composition of arsenic and soap, 
in order to kill the vermin. Witness went to the prison¬ 
er’s house for it, and found it there. 
Dr. Kilburn, who attended Robert Robson Cotton, said 
he saw him early in the morning, and apparently in ex¬ 
cellent health, prattling on his mother’s knee. He was 
