491 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 17 .1870. 
pdmiiMttoij nnir fato f mwiiinp. 
Action against a Druggist. 
Cooper v. Mercer. 
An action was brought in the Stoke County Court on 
Thursday, Dec. 1, by Josiah Cooper, a plasterer, residing 
at Longton, against George Mercer, a chemist and drug¬ 
gist, of the same place, to recover £25 damages, for in¬ 
jury sustained by him through the defendant giving him 
a packet of red precipitate powder whilst supplying him 
with scidlitz powders. 
The case for the plaintiff was that on Saturday evening, 
the 29th May, he was served by the defendant with two 
■scidlitz powders in four small packets, two wrapped in 
white paper and two in blue. The same evening his wife 
mixed him a draught of water and the powder contained 
in one of each of the blue and white papers, that in the 
white paper being of a pink colour. He drank about 
three-fourths of the mixture, leaving the rest, chiefly 
•sediment, in the cup, and in a few minutes afterwards 
became very ill, and remained so all night, vomiting 
much, and being in great pain. Medical assistance was 
called in, and it was found that the sediment in the cup 
was of a poisonous nature. Plaintiff said that defendant 
wrapped the four packets up in paper before giving them 
to him, and he took them homo so wrapped up. He 
was ill and unable to work for ten days, and had never 
been quite well since. He had never taken scidlitz 
■powders before. He had had some drink a day or two 
before, and they were recommended to him by defen¬ 
dant. He called about ten days afterwards to ask for 
some compensation, which defendant refused to make. 
Plaintiff’s wife spoke to mixing the draught taken by 
plaintiff, which, she said, did not effervesce. She sent 
for defendant to come up on the Sunday, and he came to 
the plaintiffs mother’s house next door, where she saw 
him but did not speak to him. Plaintiff’s mother stated 
that when defendant came to her house, he told her there 
had been a mistake; either he had given plaintiff a 
wrong powder, or plaintiff had picked a wrong one up. 
Air. Dawes, surgeon, said he saw plaintiff about noon on 
.Sunday, when he found him suffering from symptoms 
which were not compatible with natural disease. The 
sediment in the cup was shown him, and he perceived it 
•consisted of red oxide of mercury, which was poisonous 
in large quantities, and would produce the symptoms 
exhibited by plaintiff, from which it would take some 
time to recover. Several witnesses were called to prove 
that plaintiff was sober on the evening he got the powder. 
_ In defence, it was contended that plaintiff had caused 
his own injury, or contributed to it by his own negli¬ 
gence. The defendant was called and said he had before 
sold scidlitz powders to the plaintiff, who knew their 
nature. He did not wrap up the scidlitz powders in 
question, but gave them, at his request, loose to plaintiff, 
who wrapped them up himself. There was a pile of 
small packets of red precipitate powders on the counter 
wrapped up in white paper, and amongst them he after¬ 
wards found a small packet of acid in white paper; 
1m believed that plaintiff, who told him ho had been 
drinking, had. put it there, and taken up a precipitate 
powder by. mistake. A fortnight afterwards, plaintiff 
called on him, and proposed to make the matter up for 
.£1, or even 12s., but he declined. Air. Brough, chemist, 
Longton, spoke to plaintiff having frequently bought 
scidlitz powders from him. 
Upon the judge expressing an opinion adverse to the 
plaintiff on the ground of negligence, he elected to be 
nonsuited.— Staffordshire Sentinel , Dec. 3rd, 1870. 
Excise Prosecution. 
On Saturday the Brentford magistrates were engaged 
some time in hearing a summons issued at the instance 
of the Board of Inland Revenue against William Austin, 
a bedridden shoemaker, residing at Isleworth, for selling- 
certain pills without being duly licensed. The evidence 
showed that a supervisor of Inland Revenue, on Sep¬ 
tember 29th, bought of defendant’s wife a box of Dr. 
Alantle's gout pills for Is. She said she had been selling 
them for years, and refused to say where Dr. Alantle 
lived. There was a Government label round the box, 
but there had been a loss of duty. Defendant’s wife ad¬ 
mitted having sold the pills for years, and said she did 
not know that she required a licence. The defendant 
was fined £5. 
Supplement to the Pharmacopoeia of India; or a 
Catalogue of Indian Synonyms of the Alodicinal 
Plants, Products, Inorganic and Organic Substances 
included in that work, with Explanatory and Descrip¬ 
tive Remarks, etc., in Fourteen Languages. By 
AIoodeen Sheriff, G.AI.AI.C. Printed and published 
by order of Government at the request of the Com¬ 
mittee of the Pharmacopoeia of India. 8vo. 676 pp. 
Aladras. 1869. 
Although bearing date 1869, this volume has only very 
recently reached this country. It was at first intended 
to have included the Indian synonyms in the new Indian 
Pharmacopoeia ; but, as such a course would have occa¬ 
sioned considerable delay, the work was published with¬ 
out them, the catalogue was somewhat expanded, and 
finally issued as a supplement. The table, originally 
prepared by Air. AIoodeen Sheriff, was composed of 
twelve languages, besides the Latin and English, viz. 
Arabic, Persian, Hindustani, Dukhni, Tamil, Telugu, 
Alalyalim, Canarese, Bengali, Alahratti, Guzratti and 
Burmese, and the synonyms in all those languages were 
expressed in their native characters as well as in English. 
This Table was, in 1866, referred back to India for re¬ 
arrangement in paragraphs, instead of the tabular form, 
and for the addition of the Cingalese and Sanskrit syno¬ 
nyms. It; was then arranged that the work in its mo¬ 
dified form should be printed at Aladras, under the 
author's own supervision. Encouraged by the reception 
which his labours acquired at the hands of the Com¬ 
mittee of the Pharmacopoeia of India, Air. AIoodeen 
Sheriff set to work to revise his Catalogue, to accom¬ 
plish which he states, “ I have repeated the examination 
of medicines as before, and on this occasion obtained 
several supplies of them, with their names, from the 
bazaars of Calcutta, Hydeiabad and Bombay, and a few 
other places beyond Southern India. This and the pre¬ 
vious examinations have materially assisted me in re¬ 
moving many doubts and a great deal of confusion, and 
in finding out the correct names, as well as the true 
nature of many drugs and plants. In some instances 
the drugs were involved in such a confusion, that I was 
not able to clear it until I had actually raised the plants 
suspected to produce them from seeds; and in a few 
more, the only way I found to reveal the true nature of 
them, particularly with regard to their medicinal and 
other properties, was to take them internally myself.” 
From these remarks it will be soon that Mr. AIoodeen 
Sheriff encountered his work in a right spirit, and the 
result has been the production of an exceedingly useful 
supplement to the Pharmacopoeia, valuable, not only in 
India, but also in this country. 
The first portion of the volume is occupied by the 
catalogue proper, arranged alphabetically, with the Latin 
names; as, for instance, Abelmoschus esculentus, W. and 
A. Then follow the Oriental synonyms, written first in 
English characters, expressed according to Sir Win. 
Jones’s method, and then in native characters. After¬ 
wards, where remarks are required, these are given in a 
| smaller type. Thei’e are 708 articles enumerated, to 
which a list of synonyms is furnished. 
I The next portion of the work is taken up with a table 
