77 6 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[March 23, 1872V 
over Europe. The name University of Philadelphia is 
frequently confounded with University of Pennsylvania 
(at Philadelphia), and favours the system of deception 
complained of. 
Professor Bridges remarked that in Europe, where 
medical practitioners were licensed, many had applied, 
having these diplomas, who had never been out of their 
own country. 
^srlismntsrj ani Uato framMugs. 
Alleged Manslaughter by a Chemist. 
Devon Lent Assize—Crown Court, March loth. 
Before Mr. Baron Bramwell. 
Robert William Webber (on hail), a young man 
respectably connected, was indicted for the manslaughter 
of Mr. Wm. Ellis Wall, of Salcombe Regis, on the 22nd 
of July, 1871. Mr. Clark and Mr. Mortimer prosecuted 
(instructed by Mr. Stamp) ; Mr. Cole, Q.C., and Mr. 
Carter defended the prisoner (instructed by Mr. Tweed); 
and Mr. Collins watched the case on behalf of the 
widow. 
Air. Clark opened the case for the prosecution. He 
said,—The prisoner, as you have heard, is charged with 
the manslaughter of William Ellis Wall, and I appear 
on behalf of the Crown, with my friend Mr. Mortimer, 
to conduct the charge against him. I need hardly re¬ 
mind you of the serious nature of the crime under in¬ 
vestigation. The manslaughter charged in this case is 
that of gross negligence in the preparation of a prescrip¬ 
tion, in consequence of which Mr. Wall came by his 
death. The facts are briefly these :—It seems that the 
prisoner at the bar is a brother of Charles Farrant 
Webber, a chemist, carrying on business at Sidmouth; 
and the deceased was a gentleman living in independent 
circumstances at Salcombe Regis, near Sidmouth. Mr. 
Wall had, I believe, studied medicine for some little 
time, and he was in the habit of making up prescriptions. 
It seems that Charles Farrant Webber, the chemist, being- 
unwell, went away for change of air, leaving the prisoner, 
his brother, in charge of the shop. The prisoner, I believe, 
was not on the register as a chemist, but it seems that he 
had assisted his brother before in a chemist’s shop, and 
had a sufficient knowledge of chemistry, I assume, to be 
allowed to carry on the business of the shop. On the 
22nd of July last, Mr. Wall sent Jane Shepherd, his ser¬ 
vant, to Mr. Webber’s shop with a prescription which 
he had written out. He sent her away, I am instructed, 
at two o’clock, I need only say now in passing that the 
prescription sent by Mr. Wall, if properly made up, 
would prove simply a composing draught, but as made 
up by the prisoner it was certain death; any one who 
took it must have died. The prescription, as I have 
said, was taken to Mr. Webber’s shop by Jane Shep¬ 
herd, and she requested that the medicine might be made 
up and sent to Mr. Wall’s. The medicine was not sent, 
and Jane Shepherd went again to Mr. Webber’s at half¬ 
past nine in the evening. She then saw the prisoner, 
and asked if the medicine was ready. He said it was 
not, and then made up the prescription in her presence, 
putting the mixture in a bottle, which he folded in paper 
and handed to her. She took the bottle straight to Mr. 
Wall’s house, and gave it, I think, to Susan Osier. The 
bottle, I should have told you, had. a label on it, “ To be 
shaken.” Susan Osier, immediately she received the 
bottle containing the medicine, delivered it to Mrs. Wall; 
and Mrs. Wall, as soon as she possibly could, took it to 
her husband and gave him half the contents of it, ac¬ 
cording to the directions written on it. Almost imme- 
diately after the medicine was taken, it seems, the pri¬ 
soner sent a message to Mr. Wall's by a boy called 
Pirn, stating that the wrong medicine had been sent, 
that he had forwarded another bottle, and requesting 
that the medicine he sent in the former bottle might be 
returned, as a mistake had been made. Dr. Atkins, it 
seems, happened to be in the shop when the prisoner 
discovered his error, and he told the doctor that he had 
made a mistake and had put a scruple of morphia in the 
mixture. Unfortunately the boy arrived at Mr. Wall’s 
too late. Mr. Wall had taken the medicine given to- 
him by his wife, and he was already exhibiting symp¬ 
toms which, as she said, were unusual; in fact, he was 
in precisely such a state as would be produced by his 
having taken a strong dose of poison. It was fair to the 
prisoner to say that immediately after he discovered his 
mistake he sent for Dr. Mackenzie, the deceased’s regu¬ 
lar attendant, who arrived in a very short time. Dr. 
Atkins also arrived about the same time; and it was 
again only fair to say that, at the prisoner’s earnest 
request, Dr. Hodge was also sent for, and he came at 
once. Every possible remedy was applied to restore the 
unfortunate man, but, in spite of the utmost care and 
attention, Mr. Wall died between two and three o’clock 
on the following morning. There is no doubt in this 
case that the cause of death was an overdose of opium; 
and I think there will be no doubt in your minds, for I 
shall prove it conclusively, that Mr. Wall came by his 
death by the act of the prisoner. The question you will 
have to try, therefore, will be this: Was there such neg¬ 
ligence, such very gross negligence, in the conduct of 
the prisoner as to make him responsible—criminally 
responsible—for what he did ? In other words, was he 
guilty of culpable negligence P I will, in the first place, 
call your attention to the prescription. I have told you 
that the prescription, if properly prepared, would have . 
supplied an ordinary composing draught; but the medi¬ 
cine made up by the prisoner contained, no doubt, what 
would have produced certain death, if taken. The mis¬ 
take made by the prisoner was this : that he misread 
the prescription, and consequently, as the medical men. 
will tell you, he used the salt muriate of morphia, one 
scruple, instead of the solution of morphia, half a drachm 
—that is, he used a powder instead of a liquid. 
His Lordship : Tell me that again. You say he mis¬ 
read the prescription. 
Mr. Clark: Yes, he misread “sal” i(or “sol.” 
Mr. Cole : That is the whole negligence. 
Mr. Clark, in continuation, said the prisoner admitted 
that he put in a scruple of morphia in the medicine, 
and consequently the mixture he compounded was 
eighty times stronger than that prescribed according to- 
his own admission. But the medical men would tell the 
j ury that had he put in the quantity named in the pre¬ 
scription he would have put in 30 grains (l£ scruples), 
which would have made the mixture 120 times stronger 
than that prescribed. 
His Lordship (referring to the prescription) : What 
do these signs at the end mean ? Do they indicate 
weights merely ? 
Mr. Clark: Yes. 
His Lordship : Are they equally applicable to liquids 
and solids ? 
Mr. Clark : Yes, my lord; but perhaps that is more a 
question for the medical men. Proceeding with his ad¬ 
dress to the jury, the learned counsel said : Having 
called your attention to the prescription, and the manner' 
in which the prisoner dealt with it, I will briefly point 
out to you the negligence that we impute to him. The 
prescription was in the shop all day ; the prisoner being 
in charge of the shop all day. The prisoner, being in 
charge of the shop, assumed to be a competent man, or 
his brother would not have left him in charge. Assum¬ 
ing the position he did, he undertook to be competent; 
and the prosecution say that in this case he exhibited an 
incompetence which showed on his part great ignorance 
or great carelessness indeed. The prescription was there 
all day, and he had full opportunity of seeing it. Re¬ 
member, it was left there from two o’clock to half-past 
nine. So that he had ample opportunity of studying 
