THE CASE OP ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL ABORTION AT BRIGHTON. 291 
In chemists’ shops in the country, where the “oil and colour” and other 
trades are carried on, I can quite understand why a “ dispensing department ” 
should be maintained separate from the dirt and confusion of the connected 
business. 
A “ dispensing department ” seems to me always to imply that other busi¬ 
ness is carried on in the establishment besides dispensing. Now, as regards 
the retail of a strictly pharmaceutical chemist, I have yet got to learn why 
the pennyworth of “ Epsom Salts,” or of “ Pil. Rufi,” or of “ Red Precipitate 
Poison,” etc., should not emanate from the “dispensing department” as well 
as the most elaborate prescription; and where the dark part of the back of 
the shop is labelled “ dispensing department,” I would propose altering the 
title to “ Patent Medicine Department ,” as a dark place well suits the “ arcana 
foetida /’ and although “ patent” may literally mean “open” yet, in this 
case, the name appears to Re applied on the old principle, Ducus a non 
lucendo. 
As this is a practical subject, perhaps these few remarks may not be inap¬ 
propriate. A scientific paper could scarcely be expected from an old Member, 
who, instead of passing an examination, has simply the honour of having his 
name inserted among the “ founders ” of the Society in the Journal for 1841, 
and who still retains his name on the list. 
I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant, 
Joseph Leay. 
Chilcompton, Bath, October 6,1864. 
THE CASE OF ATTEMPTED CRIMINAL ABORTION AT 
BRIGHTON. 
TO THE EDITOR OP THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL. 
Sir,—I would call your serious attention to a garbled report in the ( Medical 
Times and Gazette ’ of the recent case of criminal abortion in this town. The 
above Journal states, “ The practitioner who gave it alleged that it was for a 
bronchial affection.” Now he made no such allegation with respect to the 
prescription, but stated in a letter (evoked by one sent to him by the police 
here, to be left at the General Post Office, London, his whereabouts not being 
known) that he attended the woman two years ago for a bronchial affection. 
Now this is merely an evasive answer ; for “the practitioner,” a Dr. Rymer 
(which name the ‘ Medical Times and Gazette ’ does not mention)-, called on 
Mr. Garrett, according to his evidence, and authorized him to prepare the 
prescription. 
This Dr. Rymer was not to be found at the time of the inquest, for obvious 
reasons. 
The ‘ Medical Times and Gazette ’ also suppresses the fact that a letter was 
found on the woman, evidently from Dr. Rymer, begging for a few postage- 
stamps and asking for an assignation in town. This I consider the most sus¬ 
picious part of the evidence. 
The ‘ Medical Times and Gazette ’ has made another slip in calling Mr. 
Stowell a chemist, for he never was such, but is a M.R.C.S.; and therefore the 
censures they lavish on the chemists and counter-prescribing, and Mr. Stow- 
ell’s “ criminality ” in administering Linnm catharticum to the woman, really 
apply to thejnedical profession, ancl not to the chemists. It is amusing to see 
the worthy journalist blindly scourging his patrons. 
I enclose a circular which this worthy (Dr. Stowell) has issued after passing 
the colleges. It commences thus :—“ I apprise my patients and others that I 
have retired from the duties at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, which for three 
