1010 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[June 24,1871. 
Illegal Sale of Methylated Spirit. 
On the 8th instant, Messrs. Taylor and Culver, 173 
and 175, High Street, St. Pancras, were prosecuted at 
Bow Street, before Mr. Vaughan, for selling methylated 
spirit without licence. They pleaded “Guilty,” but 
wished the case to be heard on its merits, for the pur¬ 
pose of giving them power to take legal proceedings 
against the firm who supplied them with the article. It 
was proved in evidence that the sample sold to the In¬ 
land Revenue, officer was part of a gallon of what had 
been purchased by the defendants as “Finish.” The 
stone bottle containing the so-called “ Finish” was pro¬ 
duced, and a large gummed label having on it “ Methy¬ 
lated Finish” was pasted on the bottle. 
It was proved by Mr. Bannister, of the Inland Re¬ 
venue Laboratory, that the sample purchased contained 
only 57 grains of gum in the gallon, instead of 13122- 
grains. The magistrate said, that from the invoice 
liandod in, and from the bottle produced, labelled as it 
was, he was of opinion the defendants had been imposed 
upon, but his duty was to fine the defendants in the 
mitigated penalty of £12. 10s., as the offence, had been 
fully proved. Mr. Dwelly, the Crown Solicitor, in¬ 
formed the magistrate he hoped to be able to prosecute 
the person who had supplied the illegal article, but at 
present there were certain difficulties in the way which 
he would not then name, but which, however, he hoped 
to remove in order to bring the proper person to punish¬ 
ment. 
Sheffield County Court. — Thursday , June loth, 1871. 
tain how ho was progressing. Instead of doing this, 
however, he sold him twenty mercurial pills, and never 
visited him, the result being the fearful illness to which 
he had referred. 
The plaintiff was then called, and in his evidence boro 
out Mr. Sugg’s opening statement. He said that during 
his illness he went to the Buxton Hospital, where his 
expenses were £1 per week; but in cross-examination, 
by Mr. Whitfield, he admitted that he was a free patient 
at that institution, and explained that but for this fact 
he would have had to pay the amount named. On the 
fourth day of taking the pills he saw the defendant, who, 
on observing his state, said, “ Oh dear! You must not take 
any more.” He would not take any more for £100,000. 
He had lost twenty-six pounds of flesh in a month and 
four or five days. His earnings were £1. 1 Is. 7 \d. per 
week. 
Mr. Harrison, surgeon, said that when he was called 
in to attend the plaintiff he found him suffering from 
general debility and mercurial salivation. It was dan¬ 
gerous to take cold while salivation was going on. Me¬ 
dical men seldom administered mercury to salivation, 
but when they did so they looked carefully after the 
patient. 
Mr. A. Taylor, house surgeon, Sheffield Public Hospi¬ 
tal, said that when he first saw the plaintiff he was 
suffering from salivation, but rheumatism subsequently 
set in. Taking cold while under salivation would very 
likely lead to rheumatism. 
Evidence was also given proving the plaintiff s absence 
from work and his previous good health. 
Mr. Whitfield submitted that there was no case to go 
[Before T. Ellison, Esq., Judged) 
Claim against a Chemist. 
Thomas Ingall, saw carpenter, Oak Street, Ileeley, 
sought to recover from Joseph John Riding, chemist 
and druggist, Devonshire Street, the sum of £50, damages 
alleged to have been sustained through the administra¬ 
tion of improper medicine. Mr. Sugg appeared for the 
plaintiff, and Mr. Whitfield for the defendant, the case 
being tiled before a jury. 
In opening the case, Mr. Sugg said that the defendant 
had a branch establishment at Heelcy, near to where the 
plaintiff resided. On December 17th, the plaintiff was 
passing along the street when the defendant, who was 
near his shop door, asked him how he was. Plaintiff 
replied that he was not very well, upon which the defen¬ 
dant recommended him to have a pennyworth of his 
pills. He took the pills as advised, but received no 
benefit from them, and he informed the defendant of 
this as he passed his shop the day but one afterwards. 
The defendant thereupon said that plaintiff’s liver was 
out of order, and told him he had better take some of his 
liver pills, supplying him with a box containing twenty, 
and instructing him to take six per day. This.he did for 
three days, and on the fourth morning he took the re¬ 
maining two. After commencing work on the fourth 
day he was taken very ill while at work ; he became 
very weak, his tongue was swollen, hi 3 teeth loose, and 
salivation set in. Up to that time he had been strong 
and healthy, and had never before required the aid of a 
medical man. So ill, however, did he become on that 
occasion, that he fell down and liad to bo taken home. 
Mr. Harrison, surgeon, who was sent for, attended him 
at his home for nearly a fortnight, and gave it as his 
opinion that his illness was the effect of extreme saliva¬ 
tion. He then went into the Sheffield Hospital, whore 
he was under the care of Mr. Taylor. For sixteen weeks 
the plaintiff was unable to work, and his health was not 
yet quite restored. Mr. Sugg contended that the defen¬ 
dant, if lie represented himself as skilled in diseases such 
as he said the plaintiff was suffering from, ought to have 
given him proper directions in reference to° the medi¬ 
cine, and in a case where salivation was deemed neces¬ 
sary, he should have called to see the plaintiff to ascer- 
to the j ury. The defendant did not hold himself out as. 
capable of curing these diseases, but simply said, “ Try 
my pills.” 
His Honour said that the law now was that every 
person who held himself out as following any skilful 
employment was bound to bring to the exercise of it a 
reasonable amount of skill. This applied to medical 
men, but not to chemists and druggists, who were simply 
sellers of drugs. There was a case in which a person 
went to a blacksmith to have a tooth drawn, and the 
latter broke his jaw. He sued for damages, and the 
Court held th.it there was no cause of action, because the 
man should not have gone to a blacksmith under such, 
circumstances. 
Mr. Sugg contended that in the present case the de¬ 
fendant had voluntarily placed himself in the position of 
a skilful practitioner. 
His Honour said that a chemist and druggist could 
not administer medicines for profit. If a man would be 
so great a f ool as to go to a chemist and take any pills that 
he might give him, it was his owm fault. The matter 
having been argued at some length, his Honour decided 
that there was no case for the jury. If it had been a 
case in which a surgeon or qualified practitioner had 
done an injury to any one through not bringing to the 
performance of his duties that amount of reasonable skill 
which the law required, the action would have lain ; but 
the defendant w T as merely a chemist and druggist, and 
held himself out to the world as simply a seller of drugs. 
The ordinary practice of mankind teas not to go to chemists: 
and druggists as if they were medical men , but to go to a 
medical man first, obtain his advice, and then go to the che¬ 
mist and druggist for the drugs that had been prescribed. 
In the present case the plaintiff first went to the chemist 
and druggist, and took the pills which he recommended. 
It might be that the plaintiff had been injured by the 
pills, but in his opinion that made no case for the jury. 
There was no skill required by a chemist and druggist, who- 
did not hold himself out as a possessor of skill. It was 
the same as if the plaintiff had taken pills which he (the 
Judge) had recommended as very valuable for his com¬ 
plaint. He (the Judge) would not be liable under such 
circumstances. He should therefore hold that there was 
no case to go to a jury, so that unless the plaintiff elected 
