DEATH BY POISONING. 
Q 0 Q 
O ^ o 
upon ourselves to do this thing. Many of the propositions to meet this diffi¬ 
culty have been very plausible, but they all result in the dangerous condition of 
a company of Mutual Insurers whose objects, position, and condition would be 
known from one end of the kingdom to the other, and would remain a stand¬ 
ing temptation to even the best-disposed persons living. It would be a very 
different thing if the existing Life and Accidental Insurance Companies were 
to lay themselves out to grant protecting policies, which they might readily 
do on very easy terms. In that case the world at large would know no more 
of what we did in that way than they now do of our life and fire policies, and 
consequently would not be tempted to prosecute, for we may rest assured 
that no prosecution would follow an accident unless there was a moral cer¬ 
tainty of remuneration in case of a verdict in favour of the appellant,—un¬ 
less the case were criminal. At present we are, as a body, too poor to excite 
the cupidity of more than a very small portion of the public, and therefore 
the chances are ten to one in our favour. The number of serious accidents 
amongst us are very few, and have been greatly exaggerated. At present 
I have no fear of our being oppressed by the obnoxious Act, but, once let 
us be united to pay the lawyers, then good-bye to all peace of mind and com¬ 
fort in the prosecution of our calling ; we shall have charged a mine that 
would explode at the smallest spark. 
There is very little chance of our being able to get an alteration in the law 
to meet our case, and that of many other tradesmen similarly circumstanced 
as to liability to accident; still I do not despair of finding at least a partial 
remedy; but until the idea is more fully developed, I shall say nothing about 
what may after all prove as fallacious and impracticable as its predecessors. 
Yours respectfully, 
Heney Deane. 
DEATH BY POISONING. 
BY ME. E. GOODWIN MUMBEAY. 
When the dispensing chemist has accurately prepared a medicinal com¬ 
pound and sent it out properly labelled, his responsibility ceases ; the medica¬ 
ment, whether of an innocent or dangerous character, is equally beyond his 
control, and is thenceforth confided to the patient or to the nurse. 
If through carelessness on the part of either fatal or injurious results 
occur, the chemist is not held blameworthy ; but if, on the other hand, a life 
is lost or injury is sustained in consequence of the dispenser’s inattention, he 
is held amenable to the law, and the finding of a coroner’s inquest may result 
in bringing him to grief. 
In order to obviate as far as possible the liability to mistakes, expedients 
have from time to time been proposed, much ingenuity has been evoked, and 
considerable sums of money expended in the endeavour to produce what is 
called a “ poison bottle.” It is foreign to the purpose of this paper to notice 
all the numerous inventions and failures which have taken place, the reasons 
for their rejection have been fully expressed from time to, time in the pages of 
this Journal. 
Almost without exception, the whole tribe of inventors have been quietly 
shelved or altogether ignored. The only really practical “ poison bottle ” 1 
have seen is that invented by Messrs. Gilbertson and Sons. Its form being a 
wedge, it cannot be stood upon a shelf in company with other bottles, conse¬ 
quently can never be mistaken for another. The shape, too, is very advan¬ 
tageous, as it does not allow the contents to run out, even when uncorked ; 
Vol. vi. 2 B 
