1046 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
The first case was that of John Finch, baker, High 
Street, Peckham. A 21b. loaf was purchased by Charles 
Wood, one of the inspectors. On being tested by Dr. 
Bemays, Professor of Chemistry, St. Thomas’s Hospital, 
it was found to contain alum. The defendant said he 
had been twenty years in business, and never had used 
alum in making bread. He then called a man who had 
been in his employ, and who confessed that he had put 
alum in the bread unknown to his master. For doing so 
he had been discharged. Mr. Marsden then said he did 
not press the case, and the summons was dismissed. 
William John Druce, baker, Wyndham Road, Camber¬ 
well, was summoned under the same Act. He pleaded 
“ Guilty,” and said the flour supplied to him was bad. 
Dr. Bernays said the bread bought at the defendant’s 
shop contained alum, and was injurious to health. Mr. 
Ellison inflicted a penalty of £5, saying he wished it to 
be understood that in future the full penalty would be 
imposed. 
John Grimble, baker, Cator Street, Camberwell, was 
the third defendant. A half-quartern loaf purchased at 
the defendant’s shop was found to contain 28 grains of 
alum. The defendant denied having any alum, and his 
foreman said he had never seen any on the premises. 
Perhaps the miller put it into the flour. Mr. Ellison 
said bakers should have the flour tested. He fined the 
defendant £1 and costs. 
Poisoning by Prussic Acid. 
Mistake in Dispensing. 
An inquest was held in the male convalescent ward of 
the Royal Berks Hospital at Reading, on Monday, June 
16th, before the Borough Coroner (W. Weedon, Esq.), on 
the body of Mary Corps, 32, spinster. The body having 
been viewed, the Coroner in drawing the attention of the 
jury to this inquiry, said they must inquire whether the 
person who administered the draught which caused the 
death of the deceased was guilty of manslaughter; if 
the poisoning was caused by gross carelessness or negli¬ 
gence, that person was guilty of manslaughter. 
Mr. Rising watched the inquiry for the relatives of the 
deceased. 
William Robinson Hadwin (having been cautioned by 
the coroner) said : I am dispenser here ; I have been here 
four years and two months. I had been busy on Saturday, 
but not more busy than usual on Saturdays, as that is a 
very busy day. I had to make a draught for the deceased 
similar to those I had before made for her. I do not 
remember what time this particular draught was made 
up. I have seen a part of the draught since; there 
were two draughts in the bottle. It appeared to contain 
hydrocyanic, or prussic acid. I had not been using the 
acid in any former draughts, but had been using it 
frequently during the day. It was in the place in which 
it is usually kept, and was within a few inches of the 
bottles which I required for this draught. I cannot 
account for taking the wrong bottle, except by supposing 
my attention was called off for the moment, and that I 
took the bottle during that time. There was a boy in 
the dispensary with me, but he was not helping me make 
up draughts. I do not know the deceased, and have 
never seen her ; I knew nothing about her. I was in my 
usual health on that morning, and not more flurried than 
usual. The bottles of chemicals were all labelled ; there 
was a small poison label on the prussic acid bottle, quite 
large enough to be distinct. There was a similarity 
between the labels of the two bottles ; that on the bottle 
I should have used was printed by myself in large letters, 
and that on the other was printed from type. I have 
been a dispenser for many years, and never had a mis¬ 
fortune of this kind before. I had more than 100 in¬ 
patients and about 80 out-patients to dispense for on 
Saturday; the out-patients were dispensed for first, and 
then the in-patients. I suppose I began dispensing for 
the latter about one o’clock, but might possibly have 
[June 23, 187S. 
made up this draught previously, while waiting for pre¬ 
scriptions for the out-patients. I have seen the bottle 
with the draught in it, and have no doubt it is the bottle 
in which I put up the draught on Saturday. The de¬ 
ceased and her relatives are all strangers to me, and I 
have therefore no ill-will towards her. I heard of her 
death on Sunday morning ; she was to take half of the 
draught at bed-time. 
The bottles were then produced and identified. 
Cross-examined by Mr. Rising : The bottles are kept on 
the same shelf. [The one from which the draught was 
taken was labelled poison, with an orange coloured label, 
and was larger than the other.] The small bottle also 
contained poison (chloral hydrate), but is not labelled as 
such. Twenty grains were prescribed. I suppose four 
drachms of prussic acid were given ; the chloral hydrate 
and acid are always used in solution. About 40 grains 
were used in the mixture. The bottle is labelled “ half to 
be taken at bed time,” and it was the duty of the nurse to 
give it. The prussic acid bottle was in its usual place, and 
I am sorry I had not moved it, as I have at other places. 
Mary Ann Cox, nurse at the hospital, said the deceased 
was not in my charge. I had charge of the ward in which 
she was on Saturday evening. I took the draught from 
the window and gave it to the nurse who I saw give it to 
the deceased. The bottle was labelled with the name of 
the deceased, and with directions for giving the draught. 
I saw the nurse pour half the contents into a glass and 
give it to the deceased. She was immediately taken with 
a burning heat, and said it tasted very different from what 
she had had before. She asked for some water, and as I 
rinsed the cup she became stiff. I laid her down and sent 
for the matron, who came directly and sent for the house- 
surgeon. He was there in less than five minutes after she 
had taken the draught ; the bottle produced was that 
which contained the draught—it was left half full. De¬ 
ceased died about half-an-hour after she had taken the 
draught. 
In answer to questions from Mr. Rising and the jury, 
witness said she believed the writing was in the dispenser’s 
handwriting ; deceased had been a patient about a fort¬ 
night, and had a draught every night but one. The 
draught was given about ten minutes to ten, and deceased 
died at 10.20 ; she complained of'the draught burning her, 
and asked for some water, and was then unconscious till 
she died. She had suffered a great deal of pain. 
Mr. Hadwin, re-called, said : The bottle produced is 
that which has been used for deceased’s draughts ever 
since her admission ; the label is in my writing, and was 
put on when the bottle was first used. 
Mr. Richard Galpin, house-surgeon, said : The deceased 
was admitted about a fortnight ago, suffering from disease 
of the bronchial tubes. I was called to her two or three 
minutes after ten on Saturday night; the matron said she 
had suddenly been taken faint. I saw she was in a dying 
state, and on questioning the nurse I found she had been 
better all the evening. Deceased became insensible, and 
I then took up the bottle and immediately perceived by 
the smell that it contained prussic acid ; the symptoms 
were those of poisoning by prussic acid, and I have no 
doubt that was the cause of her death. I believe that is 
the general opinion of the medical gentlemen who have 
seen deceased. I have been here three years, and Mr. 
Hadwin was here before me; I have always found him 
very careful indeed in his dispensing, and never heard any 
complaint against him. 
Cross-examined: The dispenser might have smelt the 
prussic acid, which emits a strong effluvium, but, unless he 
smelt it specially, he most likely would not have done so, 
as there were so many other chemicals in the room. 
There is a great difference between the smell of the 
prussic acid and the chloral hydrate, but in the dispensary 
they would be neutralized. 
Re-examined : A post-mortem examination would en¬ 
able us to say certainly what was the cause of death. 
The quantity of prussic acid was sufficient to account for 
