786 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 15, 1S73. 
Clauses 1 and 2 refer to the title of the Bill and the time 
when it should come in force. Clause 3 deals with the 
interpretation of terms. It defines that “partnership ” 
shall mean two or more persons lawfully associated for 
the purpose of carrying on any trade or profession, and 
not incorporated by or in pursuance of any Act of Par¬ 
liament or by Royal Charter; and “firm” shall mean 
any person singly or any partnership who shall adopt 
for the purpose and in the course of carrying on any 
trade or profession as the name, title, or designation by 
which such person or partnership shall he known or de¬ 
signated any name, title, or designation other than or in 
addition to the full name by which such person is ordi¬ 
narily known and designated, or the full names of all 
the persons forming such partnership. 
Clause 4 provides that every “firm” which at the 
commencement of this Act shall carry on business in the 
United Kingdom shall, within one calendar month from 
the commencement of this Act, and every firm thereafter 
commencing to carry on business shall, within one calen¬ 
dar month from the time of commencing such business, 
transmit by post or deliver to the registrar appointed, a 
statement containing the following particulars :—The 
name of the firm; the nature of the business carried 
on; the part of the United Kingdom in which the 
registered otfice of the firm is intended to be situated; 
the full name, usual residence, and other occupation, 
if any, of the person or persons constituting the firm. 
According to clauses 5 and 6 every registered firm is 
to have a registered office which shall be the chief or a 
principal place of business of such firm under a penalty, 
and notice of the situation of sqch registered office, and 
of any change therein, must be given to the registrar, 
and recorded by him. 
Clause 7 provides that a firm removing its registered 
office to another part of the United Kingdom must re¬ 
register. 
By clause 8 a registered firm which shall use or 
adopt, in relation to or in course or for the purpose of 
the business of the firm, any fictitious name or style other 
than the registered name of the firm, shall incur a 
penalty not exceeding fifty pounds for every occasion on 
which such fictitious name is so used or adopted; pro¬ 
vided that nothing in this Act contained shall prevent 
any registered firm from transacting business in the 
name of the person, or of one or more of the persons 
constituting the firm. 
Clauses 9 and 10 provide that every change in the 
constitution of any registered firm shall be notified to 
the registrar within one calendar month after such 
change; and that any registered firm changing its name, 
title, or designation, shall be registered under its new 
name in all respects as if it were a new firm. 
By the succeeding clauses penalties are imposed upon 
persons making false declarations or omitting to comply 
with the requirements of the Bill, but a discretionary 
power is given to the Registrar in cases where it has not 
been possible to register within the time prescribed. A 
register is to be kept, to be open to inspection for a small 
fee, and certified extracts from this register are to be 
prima facie evidence in a court of justice. The Bill also 
proposes that the registrar and assistant registrar of joint- 
stock companies shall be the registrar and assistant 
registrar under its provisions. 
Tiie West Auckland Poisonixg Case. 
At the Durham Spring Assizes Mary Cotton has been 
put on trial charged with the wilful murder, by poison¬ 
ing with arsenic of her stepson, aged eight years, under 
circumstances which have now for some time been be¬ 
fore the public. The following are the chief points of 
the evidence having medical and chemical interest. 
Mr. Kilburn, a surgeon, who had attended the child, 
and certified that it died from gastric fever, said that not 
being quite satisfied in his own mind, he experimented 
on some of the contents of the stomach, found traces of 
arsenic, and gave information to the police. In conse¬ 
quence, the body was exhumed, and parts of the viscera 
and contents of the stomach were sent to Mr. Scattergood, 
surgeon and analytical chemist, of Leeds. 
He had prescribed morphia, prussic acid, and bismuth 
to the child. The child had had fits and convulsions be¬ 
fore it died, and morphia had been known to produce 
convulsions, but not, it was said, when it was adminis¬ 
tered in the doses which he prescribed. Prussic acid 
was a dangerous poison, but not taken in the doses he 
prescribed ; and bismuth was an irritant poison which, 
taken in large doses, might inflame the stomach and 
bowels, but he had only prescribed it in small quantities. - 
He had sent 12 doses to the child. The preparations of 
bismuth, the trisnitrate, and sub-carbonate, were fre¬ 
quently impure and contaminated with arsenic, but only 
in minute quantities. He kept his poisons on a nest of 
five or six shelves. Arsenic was on the second shelf in 
a bottle, .about No. 5; prussic acid was in a bottle next 
or next but one to it, about No. 6, and the sub-carbonate 
of bismuth was in a bottle at the other side, about No. 
2 or 3. His assistant, Mr. Chalmers, proved that_ he 
made up the preparation for the deceased. There was 
a liquid preparation of bismuth at the other side of the 
shop, which he believed he used. Mr. Kilburn was the 
parish doctor, and at two o’clock on the day when he 
made up the prescription there were half-a-dozen people 
in the surgery waiting for their medicines, and he spoke 
to them and asked them what they came for, as he was 
making up his prescriptions. It was proved by a char¬ 
woman that about six weeks before the death of the 
child, she was sent by the prisoner to a chemist’s for 
two-pennyworth of soft soap and arsenic, which were 
supplied to her mixed together. The chemist qjroved 
that he put in the soft soap from four to six drams of 
arsenic and mixed them. This mixture the charwoman 
rubbed into the joints and crevices of an iron bedstead 
to kill bugs, and also twice rubbed it over and between 
the iron cross-belts under the bed. A 4-in. mattress 
was placed on this, and was sometimes turned, to pre¬ 
vent its wearing all on one side against the iron cross¬ 
bars. Some of the soap was also used-for the skirting- 
boards and near the fire-place on the floor. Nearly all 
was used, and the remainder was placed in a small jar 
in a lumber-room. On a search being made at the house- 
this jar was not found, and nothing containing arsenic. 
The paper of the room had a bright green fluffy flower 
on a stone-coloured ground. Mr. Kilburn stated he was 
aw’are that chronic poisoning by arsenic had been caused 
by the use of arsenical or green papers to walls. He 
did not think that the fumes of arsenic could arise from 
the arsenic used in the room, as fumes were only 
thrown off at a high temperature, about 280 degrees. 
Mr. Scattergood proved having received the jars 
containing the viscera and the contents of the stomachy 
and also some articles found in the house of the prisoner. 
None of these latter contained poison of any kind. He 
found traces of arsenic in the contents of the stomach,, 
in the substance of the stomach, in the contents of the- 
bowels, and in the substance of the bowels, in the liver, 
and in the kidneys—none in the spleen. He estimated 
the total quantity at 2 - 60 grains. In his judgment on 
these facts he thought repeated doses of arsenic had 
been administered, and that arsenic had been given 
shortly before death, because it was found in the sto¬ 
mach. Two or three grains were sufficient to cause 
death, and half that quantity for a child. In his judg¬ 
ment the deceased had died from poisoning by arsenic. 
In the course of his cross-examination in the case,. 
Mr. Scattergood admitted that soft soap and arsenic 
would dry from exposure to air, that a heated room, 
would assist to dry it, and that a mattress on any por¬ 
tion of it would absorb moisture from the soap. If 
