September 10, 1870.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
219 
Communications for this Journal, and books for review, 
should be addressed to the Editor, 17, Bloomsbury Square. 
*** No notice can be taken of anonymous communica¬ 
tions. Whatever is intended for insertion must be authenti¬ 
cated by the name and address of the writer ; not necessarily 
for publication, but as a guarantee of good faith. 
The Betts Chancery Suits. 
“London, 1s£ September, 1870. 
“Dear Sir, —We have again to address you on the sub¬ 
ject of the Betts Suits, partly in the nature of a report of 
what has been accomplished, and in part to show that more 
remains to be done. 
“The Times of June 30th, the Standard of July 2nd, the 
Pharmaceutical Journal of July 9th, and the Chemist 
and Druggist of July 15th contain reports of the proceedings 
which resulted in the dismissal of the Bills filed by Mr. Betts 
in these suits; but since those dates the plaintiff has brought 
the cases before the Lord Chancellor, and obtained an order 
under which he has appealed. We are advised that, if the 
appeals be properly contested, the defence will continue suc¬ 
cessful, and for that object we need and earnestly solicit your 
co-operation. 
“ So long a time has passed since the Betts Suits were in¬ 
stituted, and our Committee and Defence Fund formed, that 
the general consternation which once prevailed has passed 
away, and perhaps to an extent become forgotten ; we there¬ 
fore venture to remind you of the facts. 
“ Twenty-five Bills in Chancery were filed against chemists, 
perfumers, mineral-water dealers and others, vendors of cap¬ 
suled articles. A person in the employ of Mr. Betts ivent 
into a shop and bought there a single bottle, the cork of 
which was covered with a capsule bearing the name and 
address of the person who manufactured the article and 
affixed the capsule. The retailer, having bought and sold 
the article in the ordinary course of his trade in perfect 
innocence, then received a letter from Mr. Betts’s solicitor, 
stating that he ‘ was instructed by Mr. Betts to commence 
proceedings for an infringement of his patent by the use and 
sale of his metallic capsules on bottles, which capsules had 
not been made by Mr. Betts, but of precisely similar mate¬ 
rials.’ The retailer replied, ‘As I have never capsuled, or 
caused to be capsuled, any bottle or pot in my establishment, 
perhaps j r ou will have the goodness to let me know in what 
way I have infringed the patentto which the answer was, 
‘ I beg to state that the sale by you of the capsules on bottles 
is the infringement complained of. Any person supplying 
you is equally liable, and the time will come when you will 
be interrogated as to who has supplied you, when and in 
what quantities;’ and on the same date the Bill was filed. 
“ Mr. Betts is very experienced in litigation; he was offered 
by Mr. Iiimmel £1000 for peace, and refused it; and when 
an attempt at an arrangement was on foot lie talked of 
£20,000 or £30,000 as something solid, something to eat, to 
be paid by the ‘ Pharmaceutical body ’ (bow much more from 
other traders was not stated). Some of the defendants 
settled with Mr. Betts by paying £20 to £25 each; but it 
was felt that unless a stand was made Mr. Betts might go 
through the kingdom in detail, and, with sums of £20 or £25 
apiece obtained from chemists, perfumers, wine merchants, 
grocers and others, fill his money-bags at the expense of 
legitimate traders, and also that success by Mr. Betts in that 
operation might encourage other patentees to pursue a simi¬ 
lar line, and render business intolerable. Thus, a stand was re¬ 
solved upon, a committee was formed, and a defence fund raised. 
“ Under cross-examination Mr. Betts did not recognize his 
own goods of English manufacture, and admitted having 
sundry manufactories abroad; and when it appeared likely 
that the capsules on the purchased bottles had been made by 
his Paris house, he set up a subtle distinction between Betts 
as a French manufacturer and (the same) Betts as an English 
patentee, so that the Vice-Chancellor said, ‘ I must say 
this seems to mo about the most impudent case that ever 
came into Court. I am shocked at such a mode of making 
an affidavit. I hope never to see it again.’ 
“ But Mr. Betts, ‘ the hero of a hundred fights,’ will not sit 
down under the condemnatory judgment of the Vice-Chan¬ 
cellor. He appeals to the Lord Chancellor, and may resort 
to the House of Lords ; and unless he is resolutely met, it is 
impossible to predict the result. The defence entails expenses 
which are, and will be, heavy; and we have to appeal, as we 
do with confidence, to the great body of retail and wholesale 
dealers to aid the object by a general subscription. Their 
protection from similar suits has, no doubt, been secured by 
the defence, as the patent has expired during the four years 
of litigation. 
“ It should be understood that the Defence Committee is 
not identified with, and has no claims upon the Pharmaceu¬ 
tical Society, though many of the leading members of the 
latter have taken an active interest in the object for which it 
has been formed. 
“Contributions to the Defence Fund, in stamps, P. O. 
Orders, or cheques, crossed ‘ London and County Bank, may 
be paid to the Treasurer, Mr. Lionel Newbery, 44, St. Paul’s 
Churchyard, London, E.C. 
“ Inclosed is a form for your Subscription, and we ask the 
favour of your filling it up and remitting it at your earliest 
convenience. 
“ For the Defence Committee, 
“William Temple Cooper, Chairman. 
“ 26, Oxford Street, London, W.” 
The following gentlemen form the Defence Committee, 
who ■will furnish any required information:— 
Barclay, Robert, Farringdon Street, E.C. 
Carteighe, Michael, 172, New Bond Street, W. 
Cooper, Wm. Temple, 26, Oxford Street, W. 
Ellis, George H., 4, Pavement, Finsbury, E.C. 
Field, George, 168, Edgware Road, W. 
Hart, Walter, 38, Blackman Street, S.E. 
Hills, Thos. Hyde, 338, Oxford Street, W. 
Hoyenden, Robt., jun., 5, Great Marlborough St., W. 
Newbery, Lionel, 44, St. Paul’s Churchyard, E.C. 
Potts, Robert N., 26, South Audley Street, W. 
Redwood, Theophilus, 17, Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 
Sandpord, George Webb, 47, Piccadilly, W. 
Sanger, Wm. Albert, 150, Oxford Street, W. 
Smith, Fred. Wm., 139, Newington Causeway, S.E. 
Willmott, Wm., 83, High Street, Borough, S.E. 
17, Bloomsbury Square, London. 
“ Free Trade in Surgical Instruments.” 
Sir,—May we be allowed to say a few words with reference 
to the article in your Journal of July 30th, in which our 
names appear ? 
In sending our catalogue of surgeons’ instruments to the 
profession direct, we most certainly had no intention of injur¬ 
ing in any way our best customers, the chemists and drug¬ 
gists ; indeed, apart from any better feeling, our own interest 
would have prevented our doing this. 
We learnt from experience that the surgeons would buy 
their instruments direct, and in endeavouring to transact 
this branch of our business through the chemists we found 
we were seriously prejudicing ourselves without really serv¬ 
ing them. 
With regard to the few sundries included in the surgeons’ 
price-current they were added simply to satisfy the profes¬ 
sion without furnishing our general list, and we carefully ex¬ 
cluded all articles that we thought could possibly interfere 
with the chemists. As, however, they think otherwise, in 
future we shall confine our surgeons’ list strictly to surgeons’ 
instruments and appliances. 
We fear, owing to misconception, which we deeply regret, 
that we have been the subjects of some ill-feeling in certain 
quarters, but this we feel confident will disappear when our 
motives become better understood. 
In the conduct of our business we have always scrupulously 
studied the benefits of the trade, even when to our own pecu¬ 
niary loss. 
Apologizing for troubling you on a matter which, although 
of a personal character, is of no little importance to us, 
We are, Sir, yours obediently, 
S. Maw, Son and Thompson. 
[*V* We think it right to remind our readers that the 
article referred to by Messrs. Maw dealt w r ith the obnoxious 
mode in which the case had been treated of in a contempo¬ 
rary rather than with the merits of that case, which is some¬ 
what outside the range of this Journal.— Ed. Ph. J. j 
Dear Sir,—Will you kindly insert the accompanying in 
the next number of the Pharmaceutical Journal ? 
Yours truly, 
W. T. Cooper. 
