588 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [January 21, 1871 . 
Affixing a false label to a poison, and sending- it into 
market in that condition so as thereby to mislead others 
and endanger human life, is an unlawful act for which 
the party guilty of the act is responsible, whether he did 
it wilfully or negligently, and to entitle the aggrieved 
party to his action in such case no privity is necessary 
except such as is created by the unlawful act and conse¬ 
quential injury. Privity of contract in such case is out 
of the question. For a duty violated by a druggist giving 
a false label is a duty not created by contract, but by 
law, every one being under an obligation to abstain from 
acts tending naturallv and probably to endanger human 
life. 
The injury is not rendered too remote to sustain a re¬ 
covery because separated from the unlawful act by in¬ 
tervening events, however numerous or of whatever kind, 
provided they are the natural and probable consequences 
of the act. 
And when the unlawful act is in its nature likely to 
produce the events which follow, as, for instance, a pa¬ 
tient taking a poison instead of some harmless or different 
prescription than that intended, by reason of a false label 
of a druggist, the author of it may be treated as having- 
caused the succeeding events, though they consisted of 
the acts of third persons. For the false label is a con¬ 
tinuing authority or direction by the druggist for the use 
of the poison, and he is bound to indemnify against the 
acts which it was likely to cause -when sold in that con¬ 
dition. 
The foregoing propositions seem to be fully sustained 
by the case of Thomas r. Winchester, in the Court of 
Appeals. 
That was an action brought to recover damages for 
negligently putting up, labelling-, and selling as and for 
the “Extract of Dandelion” a jar of the “Extract of 
Belladonna,” by means of which the plaintiff’s wife, 
Mrs. Thomas, being sick, a dose of dandelion was pre¬ 
scribed by a physician, and a portion of the contents of 
the jar of belladonna -was administered as and for the 
extract of dandelion, etc. 
The facts of the case, briefly, were as follows:— 
The defendant, Winchester, was engaged at 108, John 
Street, New York, in the manufacture and sale of certain 
vegetable extracts for medicinal purposes, and in the 
purchase and sale of others. 
The extracts manufactured by him were put up in jars 
for sale, and those he purchased were put up by him in 
like manner. 
The jars containing extracts manufactured by himself 
and those containing extracts purchased by him from 
others, were labelled alike—both were labelled as “ pre¬ 
pared by A. Gilbert,” a person in the employ of de¬ 
fendant. 
The jar in question was labelled “ I lb. Dandelion, pre¬ 
pared by j 1. Gilbert , No. 108, John Street , N.Y. and in 
fact contained belladonna, and not dandelion. 
The jar was sold by defendant to a wholesale druggist 
in New York, as and for the extract of dandelion. Dr. 
Foord, a physician and druggist at Cazenovia, Madison 
county, N. Y., pm-chased the article from the New York 
druggist, as and for the extract of dandelion. 
Mrs. Thomas being ill, her physician prescribed a dose 
of 1 dandelion. Her husband purchased what was be¬ 
lieved to be the medicine prescribed, at the store of Dr. 
Foord. J he medicine was taken from the jar in ques¬ 
tion and administered to Mrs. Thomas, who was thereby 
made dangerously ill, and the action was brought against 
Winchester and Gilbert to recover damages. 
It appeared that the extract in the jar in question was 
not manufactured by defendant himself, but was pur¬ 
chased by him from another manufacturer or dealer, but 
labelled with Gilbert s labels, which labels were paid for 
by Winchester, and used in his business with his know¬ 
ledge and assent. 
It was objected, among other questions, that the action 
could not bo sustained, as the defendant was the remote- 
vendor of the article in question, and there was no con¬ 
nection, transaction, or privity between defendant and 
the plaintiff. 
A verdict was rendered against the defendant Win¬ 
chester ; the defendant Gilbert being acquitted by direc¬ 
tion of the Court. 
The defendant Winchester appealed to Court of Ap¬ 
peals, and it was there held that a dealer in drugs and 
medicines, who carelessly labels a deadly poison as a 
harmless medicine, and sends it so labelled into market, 
is liable to all persons who, without fault on their part, 
are injured by using it as such medicine in consequence 
of the false label. That the liability of the dealer, in 
such case, arises, not out of any contract or direct privity 
between him and the person injured, but out of the duty 
which the law imposes upon him to avoid acts in their 
nature dangerous to the lives of others. He is liable, 
therefore, though the poisonous drug with such label 
may have passed through many intermediate sales before 
it reaches the hands of the person injured. That where 
such negligent act is done by an agent, the principal is 
liable for the injury caused thereby. 
Although the defendant Gilbert was acquitted by the 
jury under direction of the Court, and judgment rendered 
against the defendant Winchester alone for damages, 
Judge Ruggles, in delivering the opinion of the Court of 
Appeals, said that “ Gilbert, the defendant’s agent, would 
have been punishable for manslaughter, if Mrs. Thomas, 
had died in consequence of taking the falsely labelled 
medicine.” (2 R. S. 662, § 17; Tessymond’s Case; 
1 Lewin’s Crown Cases, 169 ; Regina v. Swindall; 2 
Car. & Ker. 232.) 
“ Although the defendant Winchester may not be an¬ 
swerable criminally for the negligence of his agent, there- 
can be no doubt of his liability in a civil action, in which 
the act of the agent is to be regarded as the act of the 
principal.” 
See the case fully reported in 6 New York (2 Selden) 
Reports, page 397, and the numerous authorities there; 
cited and referred to. 
The law regulating the sale of poison by druggists 
might be amended in this respect:— 
Druggists should be required, in addition to the label 
of poison and the name of the poison, to name also the 
antidote to such poison, and give brief directions for ad¬ 
ministering the antidote. This should be printed or 
written plainly and legibly, so that in cases of poison be¬ 
ing taken by accident or design, an antidote could bo 
quickly administered without the delay of getting a phy¬ 
sician ; and no doubt many lives could thereby be saved. 
The law of 1860 seems to be defective in limiting its 
application to incorporated cities and villages having a 
population of one thousand inhabitants and upwards. 
It might with advantage be made general in its appli¬ 
cation throughout the State.— Medical Record. 
SPIRITUS AMMONITE AROMATICUS. 
The following are the results of the analyses of six 
samples of the above preparation, obtained from different 
druggists, published in the Practitioner : — 
Nos. 
Per cent. Alcohol 
by weight in 
volume. 
Per cent, of Am¬ 
monia by weight 
in volume. 
Brit. Pharm. 
62-6 
2-6 
I. 
63*1 
2-0 
II. 
53-7 
1-4 
III. 
52-4 
1-5 
IY. 
52-2 
1-3 
Y. 
51-4 
1-2 
YI. 
48-1 
1-5 
