036 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [February 4,1871. 
of his patented article, then it is said that if he sells the 
patented article in France, it is for the French market, 
and it does not justify a person buying the article in 
France and bringing it over to England, and he cannot 
be allowed to use that article so made in France in 
England. Then Mr. Grove put the case of his having- 
assigned his English patent (sold it to somebody), and 
continuing the manufacture in France, and said, would 
not the importer of any article sold in Franco come 
within the doctrine of Caldwell v. Vanvlissingen ? 
No doubt in the case so put he would, because the 
licence to sell, which vested originally in the patentee, 
would then be vested in his assignee, and therefore no 
licence in England given by the original patentee after 
a sale could authorize the making of the article; so of 
course, in exactly the same way, no sale at all by the 
original patentee in France, who is also the original 
patentee in England, could defeat the rights of the 
original patentee in England, or defeat the rights of a 
person purchasing from him in France. In other 
words, it comes almost within the doctrine of leave and 
licence, and leave and licence would not be effectual in 
such a case ; and is it any more effectual in the other case, 
where a man carries on the three manufactories him¬ 
self, and himself disposes of the article abroad ? I appre¬ 
hend if he disposes of the article abroad, unless it can be 
shown, not that there is some clear injunction to his 
agents or the like, but that there is some clear commu¬ 
nication to the party to whom the article is sold, the 
person who has the sole right of vending in England, if 
he chooses to sell the goods in France, or Belgium, or 
England, or in any other quarter of the globe, the per¬ 
sons who purchase of him transfers with the goods 
necessarily the licence to use the goods which he has so 
sold. When a man has purchased an article he intends 
to have the control of it, and there must be some clear 
and explicit agreement to the contrary proved as against 
the purchaser of the article to justify the vendor in say¬ 
ing, I have not given you my licence for the sale of the 
article. He cannot prevent the purchaser using it wher¬ 
ever ho pleases as against the person with regard to 
whom he is entitled to use it. He cannot use it against 
his assignee without a previous assignment of the patent, 
because no previous assignment of the patent would 
confer that right; but he can use it against the person 
who himself is the owner and proprietor, and has the 
power of conferring a complete right on him by the sale 
of the article. If this gentleman is unable to show that 
these things which he charges the defendant with hav¬ 
ing used arc not used unlawfully,—if he cannot show 
that to be the case, I apprehend that, without establishing 
that he has not himself sold the very article the use of 
which he now seeks to prohibit, he cannot succeed by 
way of injunction in this Court any more than he would 
in an action at law. Therefore on that ground, although 
I do not quite follow the reasoning of the Vice-Chan¬ 
cellor on the subject, the decision being right, the peti¬ 
tion of appeal will have to be dismissed with costs. 
Deaths Supposed to Result from Excessive 
Doses of Chloral Hydrate. 
An inquest has been held at South Petherton to in¬ 
quire into the circumstances attending- the death of Mrs. 
Masters, the wife of the Rev. J. P. Masters. 
It appeared from the evidence that the deceased had 
for seven years suffered from violent hysterical attacks, 
for which she had at one time been recommended the 
use of stimulants. In consequence, however, of their 
effect upon her, under the advice of Dr. Norris these had 
been given up, and that gentleman prescribed for hcr 
draughts containing 30 to 40 grains of chloral. This 
offended Mrs. Masters very much, and eventually she 
went to consult Mr. Sanders, chemist, of Ilminster. 
In his evidence Mr. Sanders said he was asked by Mr. 
Masters to prescribe for deceased when she would not 
take the draughts which Mr. Norris sent her. He did 
so, and, knowing of a similar case at Ilminister, in which 
chloral was used by Dr. Mules with success, put up 
draughts for her, containing 30 to 36 grains of that me¬ 
dicine. He had been told by Mr. Masters that she could 
not bear any preparation of opium. He had made up 
these draughts within the last two or three months. 
He had put up, perhaps, four-and-twenty. He under¬ 
stood that deceased did not take these draughts at the 
same time that she was taking those of Dr. Norris. 
Occasionally deceased would take Mr. Sanders’s 
draughts in the morning instead of at night. As she 
became very fond of the draughts, they wei-e carefully 
guarded. This greatly excited her, and she insisted 
upon having them, and occasionally would take one of 
Mr. Sanders’s draughts after taking one of Dr. Norris’s. 
On Tuesday, the 8th January, upon going to bed she 
took one of Dr. Norris’s draughts. About midnight she 
awoke, and asked for another. At first it was refused, 
but she became so violent that it was given to pacify 
her. She afterwards had a third, which caused sickness, 
and a fourth. On Wednesday she had three more, fol¬ 
lowed by much sickness ; and on the Thursday morning-, 
her husband, having left her for a short time, found her 
dead upon his return. As Dr. Norris said that he 
could not state positively the cause of death, a post-mortem 
examination was ordered. 
Upon the resumption of the inquiry, Dr. Norris read a 
report of an analysis of the stomach and other portions of 
the body, made by Mr. Stoddart, chemist, of Bristol. 
Mr. Stoddart commented on the fact that decomposition 
had not taken place, although more than a week had 
elapsed since death. This he attributed to the effects of 
chloroform, a small quantity of which he found in the 
tissues. Dr. Norris said he commenced giving Mrs. 
Masters chloral in the summer of 1870, after ascertaining 
that various other sedatives did not suit her. The 
draughts he gave consisted of 40 grains. Ho had ad¬ 
ministered chloral extensively for two years past. If 
sufficient time was allowed for it to pass off it could not 
do any harm, as it did not remain in the system. On 
Monday, 9th instant, he sent Mrs. Masters a mixture of 
six doses, each dose of which contained 10 grains of 
chloral. If given in small quantities, chloral eased pain 
but did not induce sleep. According to the evidence 
given by Mr. Masters, deceased had taken 260 grains of 
chloral within thirty-five hours of her death, 112 grains 
of which had been administered within twelve hours of 
death. His opinion was that on the nights of January 
10th and 11th she must have taken excessive doses of 
chloral, which prevented any chance of rallying from the 
prostrating effects of excessive vomiting on the morning- 
of her decease, and probably produced syncope, from 
which he believed deceased died. 
The jury, after a long consultation, returned a verdict, 
“ That the deceased died from syncope produced by ex¬ 
cessive vomiting, of the cause of which there is not suffi¬ 
cient evidence to satisfy the jury .”—The Western Gazette. 
On Monday last an inquest was held at Whittlebury, 
Northamptonshire, to inquire into the death of the 
Rev. L. Froome, rector of that village. The deceased 
had gone to bed on the previous Thursday evening 
apparently in good health and spirits, and on the following¬ 
morning had been found dead in his bed. He had been 
accustomed for some time past to take opiates in conse¬ 
quence of suffering from sleeplessness. Latterly he had 
used chloral hydrate. It appeared from the evidence 
that he had taken an overdose of this drug, which had 
resulted in his death. The. jury returned a verdict, 
“ That the deceased came by his death by inadvertently 
taking too large a dose of a medicine called chloral 
hydrate.— Times. 
