-876 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[May 3, 1873. 
having been read and confirmed, Mr. Elfendale, hon. sec., 
read a short paper upon “ Our Society.” In the discus¬ 
sion which followed the reading of this paper, the President, 
Mr. Abbott, and Mr. S. Taylor repressed their opinions 
upon the questions introduced, and on the motion of Mr. 
Abbott, seconded by Mr. E. S. Payne, Associate, the 
thanks of the meeting were given to the author. This 
was the last meeting of the present session. 
SUNDERLAND CHEMISTS’ ASSOCIATION. 
The annual meeting of the above Society was held on 
Wednesday, April 23rd, at the Palatine Hotel. 
The report of the Council was read by the Secretary, 
and the balance-sheet by the Treasurer, showing a small 
balance in favour of the Society. The following officers 
were elected for the ensuing year—President, Alderman 
Thompson ; Secretary, J. J. Nicholson ; Treasurer, 
R. Robinson. Council — Messrs. J. Harrison, D. B. 
Sharp, H. Thompson, T. Nasbet, C. S. Lord, J. Mitchin- 
son, H. Turnbull, T. Burn, J. Priestly, W. Sayer. 
After the conclusion of business the members adjourned 
to a supper, provided in the Palatine Hotel. 
arlraitmtferg attir fMu JmeAmjp, 
The “ Chlorodyne ” Dispute.—Browne v. Trueman. 
(Before the Lord Chancellor for the Master of the Rolls. 
—April 28, 1873.) 
This was a bill filled by Dr. Collis Browne for an in¬ 
junction to restrain the defendant, a chemist in the Ken- 
•nington-road, from issuing certain advertisements and 
publishing certain testimonials in support of his assertion 
that his, and not Dr. Collis Browne’s, is the original 
and only genuine chlorodyne. It was the third suit 
between the parties. The plaintiff began to supply the 
public with chlorodyne in 1855, having invented it, as he 
stated, in 1846, and used it with success in his practice in 
the East. The first bill was filed in May, 1862, to restrain 
the defendant from using the name of chlorodyne as de¬ 
scriptive of a medicine prepared by himself ; but on the 
defendant putting in an answer, claiming to have dis¬ 
covered his preparation in 1844, and denying that he had 
ever advertised it, except as Freeman’s chlorodyne, the 
plaintiff dismissed his bill. The second bill was filed in 
December, 1862, to restrain the defendant from adver¬ 
tising his own preparation as “ the original chlorodyne, 
manufactured by the inventor, Richard Freeman.” On 
the 11th of January, 1864, Vice-Chancellor Wood dis¬ 
missed this bill on the ground that, as far as the name of 
chlorodyne went, the plaintiff had, by acquiescence in the 
use of it by other persons, lost the right to treat it as his 
own trade mark, and that the defendant had not actually 
.represented that his chlorodyne was of the manufacture of 
the plaintiff ; but as his Honour disapproved the course 
pursued by the defendant, he dismissed the bill without 
costs. There was no appeal from this decision. The 
rivalry between the parties was not decreased by this de¬ 
cision, for in December, 1871, the present or third suit 
was brought in consequence of some advertisements issued 
by the defendant, one of which was as follows :— 
“ The original chlorodyne and only genuine invented 
by Richard Freeman, pharmacist, entitled by the decision 
•of Vice-Chancellor Sir W. Page Wood, January 11, 1862, 
to the sole right to use the word ‘ original ’ as a prefix to 
‘ chlorodyne,’ which decision was confirmed July 12,1864.” 
The plaintiff also complained of the defendant’s repre¬ 
senting that genuine chlorodyne is only sold under the 
protection of Government authority, with a stamp bear¬ 
ing the words “ Freeman’s Original Chlorodyne,” and that 
without such stamp no chlorodyne is genuine ; and that 
several testimonials to the efficacy of chlorodyne as a 
remedy for various disorders which were really given in 
favour of the plaintiff had been appropriated by the de¬ 
fendant and printed on the wrappers of his bottles. 
Sir Richard Baggallay, Q.C., Mr. Fischer, Q.C., and Mr. 
B. B. Rogers, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Southgate, 
Q.C., and Mr. Stirling for the defendant. 
The Lord Chancellor, stopping Mr. Southgate, said the 
advertising had gone on since 1864, and the plaintiff had 
lost by his acquiescence any right he might formerly have 
had to ask the Court whether the defendant’s misrepre¬ 
sentation of the decree of Vice-Chancellor Wood did not 
amount to contempt of Court. It appeared to him that 
the suit was virtually concluded by the decision in the 
former suit that the plaintiff had not an exclusive right 
to the use of the word chlorodyne. The defendant’s 
calling his preparation the original did not, as the Vice- 
Chancellor thought, amount to a representation that his 
preparation was in fact the manufacture of the plaintiff ; 
and the words “only genuine,” which were the only new 
feature in the present suit, merely involved a slander of 
the plaintiff’s property, which might or might not be 
actionable ; but, if actionable, would not be so as a mere 
trade assertion that one man’s article is better than 
another’s. Nor could his Lordship see any ground of 
complaint as regards the testimonials used by the de¬ 
fendant. He should, therefore, dismiss the bill. He 
might be impressed in the same way as the Vice-Chan¬ 
cellor was with regard to the conduct of the defendant, 
but he could not approve the course pursued by the 
plaintiff of filing another bill after the point had been 
substantially decided against him ; so that the bill would 
be dismissed with costs.— Times. 
Charge of Culpable Homicide against a Doctor’s 
Assistant in Glasgow. 
At the Glasgow Circuit Court, on Saturday last, April 
26, Robert Taylor M‘Donald was chaged with culpable 
homicide, in so far as on the 14th January last, being 
employed as a dispenser of medicines by Thomas Smith, 
Cowcaddens Street, and having been requested by Jessie 
Stewart, otherwise Kean, to supply her with a halfpenny¬ 
worth of salts, or Epsom salts, and a halfpenny-worth of 
cream of tartar, which she had been sent to purchase for 
the now deceased Margaret Brown, warehouse girl, he 
“ wickedly, recklessly, ignorantly, and culpably ” sold her 
two packets containing binoxalate of potash, otherwise 
called salt of sorrel, and the said Margaret Brown having 
taken the contents of the packets, became ill, and died 
about half an hour afterwards. The prisoner, who had 
been liberated on bail, took his place in the dock, and 
pleaded not guilty. He was defended by Mr. Cooper. 
The first witness called was—• 
Mrs. Esther Brown, who deponed—Margaret Brown, 
the deceased, was my daughter. She was 17 years of age 
at the time of her death, and was in the employment of 
Messrs. Howat, Brown, and Co. On the morning of 14th 
January, she left for her work about eight o’clock. She 
was then well, and generally enjoyed good health. Nothing 
had occurred to vex her. 
Jessie Stewart or Kean deponed — I worked with 
Margaret Brown at Howat, Brown, and Co.’s. On the 
morning of the 14th January I called for her at her 
mother’s house, and we went out together. On the way 
she gave me Id., and told me to buy for her a halfpenny¬ 
worth of salts, and the same quantity of cream of tartar. 
I went to Dr. Smith’s shop in Cowcaddens, and asked for 
the salts and cream of tartar. I think the prisoner was 
serving in the shop. He took something out of a clear 
bottle which he removed from one of the shelves. He put 
the medicine on a piece of paper and made it up into a 
parcel. I did not see him make up the other parcel. He 
took it from some place, but I cannot say where. 0 ae of 
of the parcels, I cannot say which, he labelled. He 
weighed the stuff that he took out of the bottle. The 
