•March 2, 1872.] 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
717 
continues to manufacture and sell the medicine, made 
up in bottles in all respects the same as when sold by 
Dr. Henderson himself. (5.) That during Dr. Hender¬ 
son’s life the defenders purchased from Dr. Henderson 
•and sold in their shop large quantities of said elixir. 
(6.) Since Dr. Henderson’s death the defenders have 
prepared, and sold under the name of “ Concentrated 
Stomachic Vegetable Elixir,” at a price considerably 
less, and of a quality, as alleged by them, equal if not 
superior to the medicine prepared by Dr. Henderson, 
and now sold by the pursuer. (7.) It is not proved that 
the defenders have advertised and sold the medicine so 
prepared by themselves under the name of Dr. Hender¬ 
son, nor with his name or signature attached to the 
bottles. (8.) That in the month of November last, on 
four several occasions, persons sent by the pursuer to 
the defender’s shop generally asked for Dr. Henderson’s 
elixir, and were furnished with bottles containing the 
'defender’s own preparation, paying the lesser price 
therefor, and that such sales were made without any 
■distinct statement by the sellers that it was or was not 
the preparation of Dr. Henderson, and was received by 
the said persons without challenge. Applying the law 
to the facts herein specially found, finds that the pur¬ 
suer has not established sufficient facts whereon to found 
an interdict against the defenders of the nature and 
within the extent craved; therefore assoilzies the de¬ 
fenders from the action: Finds them entitled to ex¬ 
penses, allows account thereof to be lodged, and remits 
the same to the auditor to tax, and decerns. 
In a long note appended to his interlocutor, the 
learned Sheriff says that the Patent-laws have long 
been a subject of contest in the field of political eco- 
aomy, and, with all its changes, these laws have not yet 
been settled upon such a sound basis as to give an in¬ 
ventor a reasonable protection for his invention, and 
1 o secure the public from its becoming an evil instead of 
a benefit. He remarks that he is at a complete loss to 
discover how, in the case of Dr. Henderson’s elixir, and 
any other medicine generally denoted under the orni¬ 
thological title of “quack,” any quantity of Revenue 
stamps may be purchased without inquiry or security at 
a pretty high figure, and attached to any kind or de¬ 
scription of drug denoting that it is patented, when, in 
point of fact, it is not. This looks very like the Grovern- 
ment throwing its shield of protection over fraud, and 
•encouraging the not very wise policy of the sale and 
eonsumption of medicine of all and every kind which, 
in the present rage for sanitary and hygienic reform, 
may be far from sound policy. It is bad enough for the 
hypochondriacal section of the public to pay for and un- 
.necessarily to swallow drugs, without having in addition 
to pay to the public exchequer a considerable addition 
for the privilege. Referring to the law of trade-marks, 
under which, he says, the case falls to be decided, Sheriff 
Barclay observes that the marks which indicate parti¬ 
cular manufactures consist of all descriptions of geome¬ 
trical figures and hieroglyphics which would puzzle the 
most eminent archaeologist to decipher. The best of all 
trade-marks is, of course, the signature of the man 
whom the public seeks most to honour, and which in 
return he desires in his own way to patronize. It is, 
therefore, of everyday occurrence to find in every news¬ 
paper a “caution” to the public, not that they should 
■cease to swallow medicine, hut only such as bears the 
charmed name of “Solomon,” “Holloway,” “Parr,” or 
of some other celebrity in that extensive hemisphere. 
To imitate the signature would approximate very closely 
to forgery. After citing several analogous cases, and 
applying the principles involved in the decisions, Sheriff 
Barclay says he is of opinion that during Dr. Hender¬ 
son’s lifetime, seeing that his preparation was not pa¬ 
tented, the defenders or any person could, on an ana¬ 
lysis of the drug or otherwise, have prepared exactly the 
same medicine, and advertised and sold it under the same 
■medical denomination, but they could not have adver¬ 
tised Dr. Henderson’s name, or attached it to their medi¬ 
cine bottles, and much less put thereon his signature. 
In the absence of any competing title,- it may be fairly 
assumed that the pursuer has now the same rights as 
Dr. Henderson, and consequently he could prevent the 
defenders or any one advertising that they had acquired 
the recipe, were the sole manufacturers of Dr. Hender¬ 
son’s medicine, or affixing his name or signature to the 
bottle, but he (the Sheriff) cannot find authority for 
restraining the defenders from selling their own pre¬ 
paration under their own name. Perhaps the most 
straightforward course would be when a person asked 
for Dr. Henderson’s elixir at once to say they had it 
not, and that said there was nothing wrong in the free¬ 
dom of trade to offer their own as cheaper and better. 
The public in that case must be their own judges. The 
offence of the defenders was of a negative morality. 
The parties who came could alone complain of being 
deceived. They came for the purpose of asking for Dr. 
Henderson’s medicine, the price of which they must 
have known and been ready to pay, and in return they 
got what they expected—the defender’s own medicine at 
a shilling less of cost. 
O 
Prosecution tor the Sale of Rat Poison. 
At the Londonderry Petty Sessions, Mr. Prior (of the 
firm of W. J. Eames and Co., Licentiate Apothecaries) 
appeared in answer to a complaint for selling poison con¬ 
trary to Act of Parliament. 
Head-Constable O’Connel said that a little girl 
named Margaret Coyle, on Sunday morning, went into 
Mr. Prior’s shop, and asked for rat poison, and got 
threepence worth of it. She had been away from home 
for some days, and being afraid to go back, took the 
poison on an orange. She was promptly attended by 
some medical gentlemen, or death would have resulted. 
The Act of Parliament, passed on 14th July, 1870, the 
33rd and 34th Viet. c. 26, provides that poison must be 
labelled as poison and not sold to strangers, unless in¬ 
troduced by parties known to the vendor, and even then 
the names of those to whom it is sold must be entered in 
a book to be kept by the vendor. 
Mr. Prior produced the labels on the vermin poisons, 
showing that they were properly labelled, and said that, 
as licentiate apothecaries, the firm which he represented 
was exempted from that Act. He thought it applied 
only to vendors of poison who were not licentiate 
apothecaries. The vermin poison was sold in grocers 
shops in Buncrana and elsewhere. 
Captain Keogh (a magistrate) having read the section, 
said: If you say that you did it in ignorance of the Act 
of Parliament in question, we will inflict a very small 
penalty; but if you attempt to justify it we will prove 
the case, and inflict a very heavy penalty. 
Mr. Prior: I was certainly not aware that we were 
required to enter in a book the names of those who 
bought poison. There is a list given of medicines which 
cannot be sold but by licensed apothecaries; and if that 
contains strychnine I am authorized to sell it; but, sup¬ 
pose a person comes in for a small portion of chloroform 
or laudanum for toothache, if we are compelled to enter 
them in a book we might as well shut up shop. 
Captain Keogh (after looking at the Act): Then shut 
up shop at once, for chlorolorm and laudanum are two . 
of the things enumerated. This Act was found necessary 
from the number of deaths by poisoning taking place, 
happily not in this country'; but, in consequence ot the 
wholesale system of poisoning carried on in England, it 
was found necessary to pass this Act, and I see that it 
applies to Ireland. 
Mr. Prior: It forms such a minute portion ot my 
business that I will discontinue the practice ot selling it 
at all. I was told no later than Saturday, by a licensed 
apothecary, that it did not apply to us at all. 
Sir Edward Reid (chairman) said that the case v, a^ 
