February 24, 1872.] THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
697 
scriptions under his superintendence. Whatever the lad 
learned of his business was what he had read at home 
after business hours, and there were no thanks due to Mr. 
Horner for that. He had neglected his duty most dis¬ 
gracefully and shamefully, and instead of his bringing 
this action, he (Mr. Fawcett) contended that his client 
.had good grounds for the action he brought for neglect. 
He would call two witnesses :— 
John Alfred Pybus (by Mr. Fawcett) said: I am the 
•ajiprentice under this indenture to Mr. Horner. I have 
perhaps made up a dozen prescriptions whilst I have been 
with him. I was generally in the cellar pounding soda 
for the lubricating compound. It is for machinery, and 
mot sold over the counter of the shop. It does not re¬ 
quire any knowledge of pharmacy. Taking it week by 
week, I was about three days a week in the cellar, from 
nine o’clock in the morning until seven o’clock at night, 
■during the whole time I have been there. On other days 
I have gone to Mr. Mandall’s to catch condensed water 
and bring it to Mr. Horner’s. I had to do that one or 
two days in a week. I used to make a good many horse 
balls. I have made pills in the cellar for sale in the shop. 
I don’t object to that. Mr. Horner showed me how to 
make up prescriptions about six times. I cleaned the 
windows, swept the shop, drew the handcart about the 
■streets and I have been as far as Wynyard and Middles- 
borough with parcels. Mr. Horner has told me that I 
was a lazy fool. I went away because I was miserable ; 
because of the names I was called and the work I had to 
■do, which was not calculated to improve my knowledge 
■of pharmacy. Before I went away I had some conver¬ 
sation in the cellar with Mr. Horner about Mr. Brown, 
flic other apprentice, leaving. He said that when Mr. 
Brown left, I should not be in a position to take his place, 
and that he would therefore have to get another appren¬ 
tice and place him over me. I replied that he was most 
likely right, because I had not sufficient opportunity of 
getting experience in the shop. Seeing he was going to 
put another apprentice over me, and being told by him 
that he w T as going to keep me at the same kind of work, 
were the reasons which ultimately determined me to go 
away. I used to read hard at night. 
By Mr. Edwards: This conversation about Brown 
took place in October. My brother had not made pre¬ 
vious arrangements for me to leave my master. I was 
perhaps two hours a day in the shop. I was working in 
the cellar and carrying out parcels the rest of the time. 
'The other apprentice also worked in the cellar, but did 
not carry out parcels. I did not refuse to work in the 
■cellar. I have complained to my master by telling him 
I thought it was not my duty. I have read a good deal 
to get up my knowledge of pharmacy. The other ap¬ 
prentice taught me how to make up half-a-dozen other 
prescriptions. I did not tell my master that I was going 
to leave when I went away. I have read some of his 
hooks. My master lent me a book when I went away, 
but I did not take it with me. 
William Pybus, the defendant (by Mr. Fawcett), said: 
I have seen Mr. Horner and told him that he did not do 
his duty to my son on three different occasions. He 
complained considerably about the boy being lazy, proud 
and dull. I said he was a very diligent boy at home 
and anxious to learn his business. When he came home 
he was a steady boy. His principal complaint was that 
he had no chance of learning his business. In conse¬ 
quence of what he said, I complained to Mr. Horner. 
He used to sit up till twelve o’clock at night reading 
medical books,—much later than was good for him. 
By Mr. Edwards: I did tell Mr. Horner that my son 
was going to America, and I afterwards said that he 
would never come back to his shop. When I bound him 
apprentice, I expected that he was going to learn the 
business of a pharmaceutical chemist. I expected that 
I had placed him with a man who would teach him the 
business. Mr. Horner never told me that he would have 
to go about running errands. 
John Alfred Pybus (recalled) said: I went a month on 
trial to Mr. Horner. I was never told that I should have 
to do this work. I did see the other apprentice going 
errands and working in the cellar. 
Mr. Edwards then replied upon the second case, com¬ 
menting upon the fact that no witnesses were called to 
rebut the evidence of his witnesses as to the custom of 
the trade. 
His Honour : I am guided by the document before me, 
which says he is to be taught the profession of a phar¬ 
maceutical chemist. 
Mr. Edwards: My client did teach him as much as 
was necessary. I submit we are entitled to substantial 
damages. 
His Honour: I am of opinion that Mr. Horner gave 
this young man more to do than he covenanted to do. I 
see he is to be a “ faithful apprentice.” But what is the 
custom as to sweeping shops I am not here to judge; I 
don’t think it is a proper way to treat an apprentice. As 
to the lubricating grease, such a manufacture might bo 
carried on by a large firm in London, but it certainly 
was not teaching him his business to set him grinding 
away at soda to make a composition. 
Mr. Edwards : There were two apprentices. 
His Honour: I don’t care about that. If the one 
apprentice thinks well to do it, that is no reason why 
another should. Nor do I think it a proper thing to 
send out an apprentice to a chemist and druggist with 
soda water, which is not even manufactured on the pre¬ 
mises. Then conies the question, is the boy justified in 
running away in the way he did ? I don’t think he was, 
and there must be some damages to Mr. Horner on that 
point. I don’t think myself that he has sustained much 
damage, as he can get another boy and place him in the 
same position occupied by young Pybus; therefore, I 
don’t see much damage made out. I think ten pounds 
a sufficient sum, and find a verdict for £10 in the first 
case, and a verdict for the defendant in the other action, 
without costs, and the indentures to be cancelled, as 
agreed between the parties .—Evening Gazette for Jlid- 
dlesborough, Stockton and district. 
Poisoning by an Overdose of Opium Prescribed in 
Mistake. 
An inquest was held at Caldbeck on Tuesday, February 
13, on the body of Hannah Simpson, a child one year 
and eight months old. It appeared that the child having- 
been taken ill on the previous Saturday, the mother sent 
a messenger to Dr. Brown, of Hesket-new-Market, to 
acquaint him with the child’s condition, and ask him to 
come and see it, or send medicine that would give it re¬ 
lief. In reply, Dr. Brown sent a powder, with an inti¬ 
mation that he would call in the course of the day. The 
mother, thinking that the powder was an unusually large 
one, gave only half of it to the child. The result was 
that in a few minutes the child fell into a sleep and died, 
without rallying, the same evening with all the symp¬ 
toms of opium-poisoning. 
According to the messenger, he asked for medicine for 
a “ little onebut Dr. Brown stated that he said he had 
come from the child's father. Dr. Brown also said that 
having attended the father for low fever and pleurisy 
some time since, he, after some questions as to the symp¬ 
toms, sent a powder containing calomel and opium, which 
he intended to be administered to the father. The re¬ 
mainder of this powder was produced, and from an ex¬ 
amination of it, the original powder was estimated by 
the medical gentleman who was called in to have con¬ 
tained from two to two and a half grains of opium. 
The jury returned a verdict that the child died from 
opium administered by mistake, arising from a misun¬ 
derstanding between the doctor and messenger, but they 
entirely exonerated both parties from blame. 
