49G 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. [December 16,1871. 
bath a little muriatic acid, when it yields to the wool a 
tine dark purple-blue, that can bo converted into various 
shades of purple by passing the wool so dyed in a bath 
containing a small quantity of carbonate or acetate of 
soda, which removes a small quantity of sulpho-indi- 
gotic acid that may be present, and gives rise to sulpho- 
purpurate of soda , which is a faster dye than the acid. 
Sulpho-indigotic Acid is manufactured by dissolving 
one part of indigo in ten or twelve parts of concentrated 
sulphuric acid, and heating the whole at a temperature 
of 120° F. very carefully for some hours. The operation 
is completed when a small quantity dissolves entirely in 
cold water. 
The acids above described, when obtained perfectly 
pure, have the following formulae:—Sulpho-purpuric 
acid, C 1G H 10 N 2 O 2 , S0 3 ; sulpho-indi gotic acid, C 8 H-NO, 
S 0, 
Berzelius admits a third compound, called hypo-sulpho- 
indigotic acid. These acids are transformed into neutral 
salts of soda, and sold under the names of neutral paste 
and carmine of indigo. They are prepared by neutraliz¬ 
ing the sulpho-acids with carbonate of soda, and the 
paste so formed is thrown on a woollen filter to remove 
the sulphate of soda which it contains, as well as a green 
colouring matter, which is doubtless modified chlorophyl. 
The paste is then washed with a solution of chloride of 
sodium. Pt is a curious fact that carmines of indigo, 
which are perfectly soluble in pure water, are altogether 
insoluble in water containing either sulphate of soda or 
chloride of sodium. 
Whilst speaking of the sulpho-indigotates, it may be 
useful to notice that the sulpho-indigotates of potash and 
soda are soluble in 100 to 150 parts of water, the svdpho- 
indigotates of lime, magnesia, and alumina are freely 
soluble, whilst those of baryta and lead are insoluble. 
(To be co>ttinued.) 
Iprlrainratojr mis fate fnrmMngs. 
Prosecution of a Chemist for Misrepresentation. 
Dalrymple v. Lakin. 
In this case the defendant had been summoned before 
the Leicester magistrates, under the Medical Act, for 
having illegally practised as a doctor of medicine.* 
On Friday, December 1, at the request of the Mayor, 
the judgment of the Bench (which went fully into all 
the facts of the case) was read, the substance of which 
was as follows :—“In the case now before us, it appears 
that the words ‘ Dr. Lakin ’ are on a plate at the 
side of the door; that the words ‘ Dr. Lakin, botanic 
practitioner,’ are over the window in large letters, ex¬ 
tending the whole length of the front of the house; that 
the defendant is in possession of an American diploma ; 
and that in a certificate of death he describes himself 
as ‘M.D. (U.S.).’ With respect to this certificate, we 
think no one can successfully contend that a person who 
actually describes himself as M.D. (U.S.)—evidently 
meaning a doctor of medicine of the United States—is 
guilty of the offence of wilfully and falsely assuming the 
title of doctor, so as to imply that he is a recognized 
physician in England; and the words ‘ botanical practi¬ 
tioner ’ would probably be viewed in the same light as 
‘ mechanical dentist ’ were in Ladd v. Gould , as they do 
not appear to be such words as would be used by any 
medical man who wished it to be known that he was a 
legally-qualified practitioner, and registered under the 
Act. Although we could have wished that the facility 
with which foreign diplomas are obtained, and their 
utter worthlessness in many cases as tests of medical 
proficiency, had been more fully brought under the 
notice of the Court of Exchequer, yet, after the decision 
in Ellis v. Kelly , which opened the door for the admis- 
* See ante, p. 457. 
sion of foreign diplomas for the purpose of negativing* 
the charge of a false pretence, and the 'slew of the right 
to use the word ‘ doctor,’ taken even in a work regarded 
as one of the organs of the medical profession, in which 
it is broadly stated that a person in the possession of the 
degree of M.D. under a diploma from the College of 
Pennsylvania, however obtained, has the right to call 
himself a ‘Doctor of Medicine’ if he pleases (see Lancet , 
September 23, 1871, p. 457),—we do not feel justified in 
convicting the defendant of the serious offence of hawing 
by ‘ wilful falsity ’ used the title of doctor, he being in 
possession of a diploma from an incorporated college in 
the United States, which has the appearance of being, 
although not legally proved to be genuine ; as the pos¬ 
session of such a document may have led the defendant 
to believe, in common with some members of the medical 
profession in England, as shown by the publication to 
which we have referred, that he was entitled to use the 
prefix of £ Dr.’ to his name, and this may under a penal 
statute be an answer to the charge of having ‘ wilfully 
and falsely’ assumed such title. We think it will not 
be out of our province to add that if the Medical Act 
were intended to give any security to the public that 
medical practitioners should be persons of education and 
science, it has to a great extent failed in its object; and 
that to be effectual it requires material amendment, as- 
the offence created by the Act is not that of practising- 
without being registered,—for which there is no penalty, 
—but of wilfully and falsely using a name or title im¬ 
plying that the party has been registered, an offence 
which, considering the interpretation put on the words- 
‘ wilfully and falsely ’ in the cases referred to, it is ex¬ 
ceedingly difficult to prove in a court of law.” 
Action for Recovery of Apprenticeship Premium. 
Court of Common Pleas , TFestminstcr, Pec. 4. 
Before Mr. Justice Byles and a Common Jury. 
Fowler v. Curtis. 
Mr. D. Seymour, Q.C., and Mr. Collins were counsel 
for the plaintiff; Mr. Serjeant Parry and Mr. J. O. 
Griffiths for the defendant. 
This was an action to recover damages for a breach of 
covenant in an apprenticeship deed. The plaintiff was 
apprenticed to the defendant, a chemist, druggist and 
dentist in the Ilaymarket, for the term of three years 
and a half. Towards the close of the first year the de¬ 
fendant became unwell, and was advised to dispose of 
his business, which he did, and was consequently unable* 
to continue to instruct the plaintiff in the art and mys¬ 
tery of the profession. The defendant paid into Court 
the sum of £130, part of the premium of £170 received 
from the plaintiff, retaining £40 for the instruction and 
other benefits received during the first year of the term. 
The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this, representing to 
the jury that the first year’s instruction was little moro 
than the drudgery of minding the defendant’s shop from 
early morn to late at night. 
The jury found that £130 was insufficient, and gave 
to the plaintiff £40 more,—in effect, finding that the 
plaintiff was entitled to the return of the entire pre¬ 
mium. 
Suspected Poisoning. 
On Tuesday, Dec. 4th, an inquest was held at Hoxton, 
to inquire into the circumstances attending the death of 
William Dent Russell, aged seven months. 
Amelia Russell, wife of William Russell, a cabinet¬ 
maker, said that deceased was her son. He had a cough 
for some time past, and she often gave him some mixture 
which she had obtained from a chemist. After ad¬ 
ministering some of it to the child on Thursday, he be¬ 
came suddenly ill, and died at four o’clock on Friday 
morning in great agofiy. Her husband was very unkind 
to the deceased, and often said he wished it was dead. 
Her husband used oil of vitriol in his business. 
