January 27, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
"been in business thirty years, ought to he peculiarly 
fitted to conduct that business. 
Defendant said he was not aware even that he was 
bound to put his name on the label. 
The Bench retired, and on the magistrates resuming 
their seats, Mr. Hughes said the justices had very care¬ 
fully considered this case, and their decision was that the 
defendant should pay £1, including costs, and the reason 
of the Bench for inflicting such a mitigated penalty was, 
that the word “poison” appeared to have been on the 
label, although not the name and address. This would 
be a sufticient warning to the defendant and to other 
persons who were not sufficiently acquainted with the 
Act. If any other case came forward, it would be dealt 
with far more severely. 
Mr. Bury withdrew the second information, now the 
defendant had expressed that he did not intend to cast 
any imputations on Mr. Edisbury. 
The Disputed Claim at Shrewsbury. 
Andrews v. Davies. 
This case, it will be remembered, came before the 
Shrewsbury County Court, and was adjourned to enable 
the plaintiff to amend his bill. He now sued for certain 
articles supplied as a chemist and druggist. 
Mr. Chandler, for the defence, said his client was 
freed from payment of the bill by the Medical Act. 
Mr. Andrews, the plaintiff, was then examined. He 
said: This bill is for medicines supplied on the dates 
stated in the account. The defendant was then ill, and 
these medicines were supplied to him. The charges are 
the usual trade charges. 
Air. Chandler: If I read this bill rightly, it contains 
something else besides charges for medicines. There 
are some portions of it in which you make no charge ? 
Plaintiff: Yes. 
Mr. Chandler : "Where is your diploma ? 
Mr. Morris, for the plaintiff, objected to this question. 
The Judge: How are you entitled to ask for his 
diploma ? Here is a bill as a chemist and druggist. 
He claims, not as Thomas Andrews, M.D., but as 
Thomas Andrews, chemist and druggist, and he charges 
for no more than for what a chemist and druggist would 
be entitled to charge. Although there are some other 
things in the bill, he puts no charge to them. Does the 
mere fact that he entered these things in the bill, and 
that he entered some other service rendered to the 
defendant, although he has not charged for more than 
supplying the medicines,—for he does not make any 
charge for services,—make it a medical man’s bill, or 
entitle you to ask for his diploma ? 
Mr. Chandler: No, it does not; but I will postpone 
asking for the diploma. (To plaintiff.) "When did you 
prescribe these medicines F 
Plaintiff: At the time. 
Mr. Chandler: You did prescribe them, then ? "When 
did you compound them ? 
Plaintiff: Perhaps one day, and he called for them 
the next, when the medicine was ready. He generally 
called in and said, “ I shall want another bottle of medi¬ 
cine,” and it was got ready for him. 
Mr. Chandler: You prescribed them one day, and 
compounded them another ? 
Plaintiff: Yes. 
The J udge : "What I take to be the law is this,—a 
chemist and druggist may prepare and dispense medi¬ 
cines, but he cannot give advice. I infer that, although 
he may make up and dispense medicines, he cannot pre¬ 
scribe medicines'. Prescribing is not dispensing. 
Mr. Chandler: He has admitted that he prescribed 
them the day before he dispensed them. 
The Judge (after referring to the Act) : I imagined 
the moment he said he had prescribed this medicine he 
was out of court. 
617 
Mr. Morris : But I will show that all these medicines 
were sold in the ordinary way. There is no difference 
between these charges and the charges of a chemist or 
apothecary. In point of fact, these charges are those of 
a chemist and druggist. 
The Judge: Whatever these charges are, he has put 
himself on the footing of a medical man. When a 
chemist takes upon himself to prescribe, he invades the 
province of a medical practitioner, and plaintiff has said 
that he prescribed them. 
Mr. Morris: But a man may come into a shop and 
order a bottle of sarsaparilla. 
The J udge : That may be; but if the doctor, or would- 
be doctor, prescribes it, it is fatal to his recovering for 
it. There is a difference between supplying it and pre¬ 
scribing it. 
Mr. Morris : Then do I understand your Honour that 
it is no use going on with the case ? 
The Judge : Not the least. 
Mr. Morris: Although the plaintiff has been in an¬ 
other court, he thinks he has a right to sue in this court, 
as a chemist and druggist, for drugs supplied in the 
ordinary way of his trade as a chemist. 
The Judge : He has vitiated all claim to what he has 
supplied, in consequence of his having prescribed them. 
J udgment is for the defendant with costs. 
Mr. Chandler: I did not ask for any costs before, and 
I do not ask for them now. 
Alleged Poisoxixg of a Medical Officer. 
On Thursday morning, January 18, Hannah Steele 
was brought up on remand at the Manchester City. Police 
Court on the charge of having caused the death, by 
poison, of Mr. Andrew Harris.*' The following evidence 
was given in addition to that printed last week. 
Dr. Crace Calvert said : I have analysed the contents 
of one bottle that has been handed to me by Inspector 
Henderson. It is a small, white bottle, labelled “ Found 
on the mantelpiece in Mr. Harris’s room, on the 10th 
January, 1872.” I have completed my analysis. It 
contains atropia, which is a vegetable poison found in 
what is called Atropa Belladonna , or deadly nightshade. 
It is a deadly poison, and a very small quantity would 
produce death. Jt may be useful to the Court to know 
that I sent to the workhouse for the solution that is 
usually employed at the workhouse, and I have com¬ 
pared it with the one which was found in Mr. Harris’s 
room. Both of the solutions are identical. Tea would 
have a tendency to separate the poison, but with milk it 
would mix. I have not completed my examination of 
the blood, urine, etc. 
Margaret Lythgoe was asked whether she had not 
said that she had seen drugs poured from one bottle 
to another in Mr. Harris’s room over the tea things, to 
avoid soiling the cloth. This she denied. She had 
never seen drugs mixed in the room. Some drugs were 
kept in the room in a small medicine chest on the mantel¬ 
piece. She did ask Mr. Harris while he was ill, whether 
he thought Mr. Patchett might have been mixing drugs 
that morning and accidentally poisoned the milk, but 
he said he did not think so. 
Evidence was given that Mrs. Steele was seen to go 
into Mr. Harris’s room about half-past eight on the morn¬ 
ing in question. 
Mr. Patchett, the assistant-surgeon, repeated his 
former evidence, and in addition stated, that the deceased 
said to him that while he was washing in his bedroom he 
heard somebody in the sitting-room. He opened, the 
door and saw Mrs. Steel in the room. Deceased pointed 
to a phial on the mantelpiece, and said that he found it 
there that morning, but that it had not been there the 
previous evening. He also said that the liquid in the 
bottle smelt like the milk. 
* See ante , p. 590. 
