September 23,1871.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
257 
it. It was dark at the time. I live with Mr. Utley as 
servant. I didn’t know the deceased was likely to be¬ 
come a mother, and she never told me she was. She 
•appeared to suffer great pain during the day. 
William Horne was next called, and said: I live in 
Rotherham, and am inspector of police in the West 
Riding constabulary. On Wednesday morning last I 
took William Collinson into custody on a warrant, which 
I read to him, charging him with causing the mis¬ 
carriage of a woman named Eliza Utley by unlawful 
means. On Thursday morning, the 14th instant, the 
last witness, Elizabeth Lockwood, pointed out to me an 
ash heap, which I caused to be emptied. I found the 
body of a child, and gave it to Dr. Knight. 
Mr. Whitfield cross-examined the witness for the 
.defence. 
This concluded the evidence, and the coroner addressed 
the jury as follows :—Gentlemen of the jury, I must not 
conceal from you the fact that there is a dying declara¬ 
tion made by the woman Eliza Utley. The declaration 
is hero, but it cannot be read, chiefly because there is no 
one here to prove it. But I think it is only right that 
you should have that declaration before you if the law 
will allow it. Therefore I shall adjourn this inquest, in 
■order that I may have an opportunity of looking more 
fully into the law and seeing whether it can be laid 
before you; and if so, whether we can have witnesses 
present to prove that this woman made that dying decla¬ 
ration. We cannot do anything more to-day.” 
Mr. Edwards : If the jury are satisfied— 
'The Coroner: I shall not allow the jury to be satisfied. 
It is a very suspicious case, to say the least of it, and I 
think we should have all the evidence it is possible to 
,get. The police have done exceedingly well to get the 
/evidence they have in the short time they have had since 
this matter was brought under their notice. 
Mr. Whitfield: Then I think you have got thus far— 
that the woman had a miscarriage, and that she died 
from peritonitis. 
The Coroner: Yes, and also that she has had some 
dealings with a man named Collinson, who is charged 
with procuring abortion; and that I know, and you 
"know, and other people know, that there is that dying- 
declaration. 
The inquest was then adjourned until two o’clock 
next Tuesday, to be resumed at the ‘ Flying Dutchman/ 
JParkgate.— Sheffield Daily Telegraph. 
The adjourned inquest was held at Southgate on the 
19th instant. 
The evidence of the clerk to the Rotherham bench of 
magistrates and of a doctor who attended the girl was to 
The effect that the deceased made a declaration under the 
impression that she was dying. The declaration stated 
that she was enceinte , William Collinson, chemist and 
druggist, Rotherham, being the father of the child. She 
went to him at his shop, and he used an instrument to 
procure abortion. Subsequently she was prematurely 
.delivered of a dead child. After a consideration of about 
half an hour, the jury returned a verdict of “ Man¬ 
slaughter.” Bail was accepted by the coroner for the 
prisoner’s appearance.— Times. 
Siiiiious Charge against a Grocer. 
John Blowers, grocer, of Weeley, was summoned for 
having sold, on the 25th August, certain poison, viz. j 
half an ounce of laudanum, the bottle not being properly 
labelled with the name of the article, the word “ poison ” 
•and the name and address of the seller, as required by 
the Pharmacy Act, 1868. Defendant in the first in¬ 
stance pleaded. Not Guilty, disputing the quantity named 
,in the summons, but he eventually withdrew that plea. 
A child, named Annie Gardener, was put into the box, 
and the magistrates finding she -was not conversant with 
.the nature of an oath (although eleven years of age) she 
was not sworn. She stated that, on the day in question, 
she was sent by her mistress to defendant’s shop for half 
an ounce of syrup of poppies, and received from Mr. 
Blowers the liquid contained in the bottle produced. 
Mr. John Tills Lines, by whom the information was 
laid, stated that on the (lay in question his wife sent the 
last witness for half an ounce of syrup of poppies. She 
returned bringing the bottle and contents produced. 
The drug was required for family purposes, and witness’s 
wife intended administering a dose to an infant child, 
but thinking from its appearance and smell that that 
was not the article she sent for, and seeing a label “ tinc¬ 
ture of rhubarb ” on the bottle she decided not to do so. 
Next morning, as two other children were suffering from 
diarrhoea, she decided to use the contents of the bottle 
for them, but her suspicions of its real nature being again 
aroused she showed it to witness, and he immediately 
recognized it as laudanum. He shortly afterwards went 
to defendant’s house and told him of the occurrence, 
when the defendant said, “Well, syrup of poppies and 
laudanum are both the same thing, aren’t they P” 
Witness said, “ No, of course they are not.” 
In answer to Mr. Foaker, defendant said he had no 
licence to sell drugs. He was not then aware that a cer¬ 
tificate was necessary, but he was now. He told the girl 
it was poison. 
The Chairman: That does not affect the case. You 
had no business to sell drugs without a licence. You 
ought also to have a book in which to enter all sales of 
poisons. 
Mr. Foaker: The least you could have done would 
have been to put another label on the bottle. It might 
perhaps have been left about the house, and there is no 
telling what the consequences might have been. Mr. 
Foaker added that there did not seem to him to be half 
an ounce in the bottle. On being measured in a gra¬ 
duated glass brought by the defendant, it was discovered 
that there were only two drachms then in the bottle. 
In answer to the Chairman, complainant said none had 
been taken out. 
Colonel Hawkins: Then you did not got all you paid 
for. I think there’s something incomprehensible in the 
defendant not knowing the difference between laudanum 
and syrup of poppies. 
Defendant: That is not a true statement. I have sold 
drugs all my life, and have never done anything wrong. 
Colonel Hawkins: You had no business to sell them 
at all if you are not properly certificated. 
The Chairman: The Excise authorities will see after 
that. There is a £20 penalty. 
Defendant said he had had some correspondence with 
the Pharmaceutical Society with reference to the case, 
and had promised not to offend again. He had also ex¬ 
pressed his regret to complainant for the occurrence. 
After a short consultation with his brother magistrates, 
the Chairman said the Bench looked upon the present 
case in a very serious light. They felt it their bounden 
duty to inflict a heavy penalty, not only for the protec¬ 
tion of the public, but to prevent common grocers like 
defendant from dealing in goods of which they had not 
a thorough knowledge, and which were so eminently 
dangerous. Defendant would be fined £5 and 9s. ex¬ 
penses, or two months’ hard labour. 
Defendant applied for time, but, on this being refused, 
paid the money.— The Dssex Standard and Eastern 
Counties Advertiser. 
Infringement of the Pharmacy Act. 
Mr. Lloyd Rayner, chemist, druggist and dentist, of 
809, New North Road, Islington, was summoned by 
Richard Faulkner to answer the following complaint 
“ For that you did, on the 9th day of August last, un¬ 
lawfully sell certain poison—to wit, oxalic acid—with¬ 
out the cover containing the same being distinctly 
labelled with the name of the, article and the word 
4 poison/ contrary to the statute.” 
