February 21, 1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
G95 
time, but left his children a capital in the trees,” was 
universally true. . 
In fact, in such a state of affairs commerce could not 
exist, for, as Cowper has beautifully put it:— 
“ The band of commerce was designed, 
T’associate all branches of mankind ; 
And if a boundless plenty be the robe, 
Trade is the golden girdle of the globe. 
Wise to promote, whatever ends he means, 
God opens fruitful nature’s various scenes. 
Each clime needs what other climes produce, 
And offers something to the general use; 
No land but listens to the common call, 
And, in return, receives supplies from all. 
This genial intercourse, and mutual aid, 
Cheers what were else an universal shade.” 
(To be continued.) 
Ijarlwntttttarj antr fromtap. 
HOUSE OF COMMONS. 
Tuesday , Feb. 13 th. 
Adulteration of Food and Drugs. 
Mr. Muntz obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend 
the law for preventing the adulteration of food and 
<lrugs. 
The Bill was brought in and read a first time the 
■same evening and ordered to be printed. The second 
reading was fixed for "Wednesday, March 6. 
Friday , Feb. 16 th. 
The Law Relating to Juries. 
The Attorney-General, in replying to a motion brought 
forward by Mr. Lopes, as to the necessity of amending 
the law relating to juries, said that he could not say 
when it would be possible to undertake such legislation, 
hut the subject had engaged his attention for some years, 
and at the earliest possible moment he would bring in 
•a Bill dealing with it. 
Public Health Bill. 
Mr. Stansfeld moved for leave to introduce a Bill to 
•amend the laws relating to public health. In the course 
of his remarks he said that he did not propose to deal 
with the question of the adulteration of drugs. As to 
the adulteration of food, there were powers under the 
Nuisances Removal Act) of dealing with unwholesome 
food, and he proposed to extend these powers specifically 
in certain directions to which he would not then allude. 
Rut he proposed to make the local sanitary authority 
the authority for acting under the Food Adulteration 
Act of 1860. He proposed also to call upon the local 
sanitary bodies to provide hospitals and all the appliances 
■and medical attendance for the treatment of epidemics. 
He also intended to ask the House to give to the Local 
Government Boards, with respect to the country, the 
•same power which the Poor Law Board possessed in the 
metropolis, of requiring the institution of poor-law dis¬ 
pensaries and the provision of drugs for the treatment 
•of paupers. 
The Obligation of Pharmacists to their 
Apprentices. 
Stockton County Court, February 12 th.—Before E. R. 
Turner, Esq., Judge. 
Horner v. Pybus, and Pybus v. Homer. 
These were cross-actions for breach of contract. In 
-each case the sum of £50 was claimed as damages. Mr. 
Edwards appeared for Mr. Horner, and Mr. Fawcett for 
Mr. W. Pybus. In opening the first case Mr. Edwards 
.said that his client was a pharmaceutical chemist in 
Stockton, and had brought this action against Mr. William 
Pybus, auctioneer, to recover damages for loss of services 
of his son, who had left his apprenticeship without leave. 
According to law it was open for Mr. Horner to renew 
the action against the father of the apprentice from time 
to time, but, with his Honour’s permission, it had been 
agreed to take his judgment upon the matter as to the 
entire damage sustained, and then to cancel the inden¬ 
tures. Mr. Fawcett agreed to this course, but read a 
quotation to show that his client could not be made re¬ 
sponsible more than once. 
Thomas Parker Horner was then called and examined 
by Mr. Edwards. He Said: I am the plaintiff in this 
case. I am thirty years of age. John Alfred Pybus, a 
son of the defendant, was bound to me by indenture to 
learn the business of a pharmaceutical chemist, from the 
7th December, 1869, until 16th April, 1874. He went 
away on a fortnight’s leave of absence in October last, 
and has never returned. [The indentures were produced 
and handed to his Honour.] We parted on the best of 
terms when he went away, and I gave him a work to 
read whilst he was away. So far as I was able, I have 
taught him the business. Latterly he was so far ad¬ 
vanced, that he stood by me and assisted me to dispense 
prescriptions. The usual work of an apprentice to a 
pharmaceutical chemist for the first year or so, is to open 
and close the shutters, sweep the shop floor, clean the 
mortars and measures, dust the bottles, and do anything 
appertaining to the business. It is usual for the appren¬ 
tice to run errands. This is perfectly understood when 
there is not an errand boy. 
His Honour: I cannot see what that has to do with 
learning the business of a pharmaceutical chemist. 
Mr. Edwards : In the cross-action it is alleged that 
the boy was not properly instructed and was sent to 
run errands. We are trying both actions at once, to save 
time. 
His Honour: Both you and Mr. Fawcett have been 
apprenticed to some one, I believe. Did you consider 
sweeping the office any part of your duty. 
Mr. Fawcett: I would see them far enough first, if I 
had ever been asked. 
Mr. Edwards: This is a matter of custom. 
His Honour: I cannot see why a boy should sweep 
the floor of a shop. I should say that was a breach of 
his contract. How old is the boy ? 
Mr. Fawcett: He is nineteen in April. 
Mr. Horner (by Mr. Edwards): I taught the boy in 
the same way that I was taught myself. I swept the 
shop, cleaned the windows, etc. This is usual in a small 
establishment where there are not any porters kept. I 
should have taught the boy his business more and more. 
Apprentices are not of much use at first. Defendant’s 
son had begun to be useful to me. Having gone through 
his initiation into the business, I looked for some reward 
for my services. I could not replace him, except per¬ 
haps by paying a young man £20 a year, and giving 
him board and lodging, which would cost perhaps £30 
a year in addition. I estimate the total damage to me 
at £50 a year, for the remainder of the time he has to 
serve. 
By Mr. Fawcett: He has been with me about two 
years. I calculate £50 a year for the unexpired two 
years and a half. Perhaps I may get another apprentice 
who will be of the same use to me as the defendant’s son 
was. I have been in business four years. I have had 
three apprentices during that time. Mr. Brown, the 
first, was there when I went. He knew something of 
his business, and served four years with me. He was 
out of his time last December. 
Mr. Fawcett: Can you tell me in what way a young 
man can learn to be a pharmaceutical chemist by sweep¬ 
ing the shop floor F 
Witness: We have all to commence in that way. It 
is not exactly connected with the business ; but he knew 
he would have it to do, nevertheless. I was apprenticed 
