Amju°iy^902arm"}    Legislation  and  Judicial  Decisions.  343 
prevent  regularly  licensed  physicians  of  the  State  of  Maryland  from 
selling  and  compounding  drugs  and  medicines  as  a  pharmacist. 
Sec.  15.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  all  acts  or  parts  of  acts 
pertaining  to  the  practice  of  pharmacy  in  the  State  of  Maryland,  in 
so  far  as  they  conflict  with  this  act,  are  hereby  void. 
Sec.  15%.  And  be  it  enacted,  That  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall 
not  apply  to  Talbot  County. 
Sec.  16.  Provided,  however,  that  nothing  in  this  act  shall  be 
construed  as  preventing  general  merchants  of  the  counties  of  the 
State  or  of  Baltimore  City  from  selling  such  drugs  and  medicines  as 
have  heretofore  been  handled  by  the  general  merchants  of  the  State 
of  Maryland,  or  any  registered  physician  of  this  State  from  per- 
sonally compounding  and  dispensing  drugs  and  medicines. 
The  enactment  of  the  Maryland  law  now  leaves  Idaho  the  only 
State  in  the  Union  without  a  pharmacy  law. 
Massachusetts  druggists  are  rejoicing  in  the  fact  that  the  "  Blue 
Laws"  prohibiting  the  sale  on  Sunday  of  candy,  cigars  and  soda- 
water  were  repealed  at  the  last  session  of  the  State  law-making 
body.  Their  repeal  illustrates  anew  the  fact  that  the  druggists  of 
a  State  are  powerful  enough  to  compel  or  prevent  almost  any  kind 
of  legislation  when  they  work  earnestly  and  harmoniously. 
The  preceding  acts  are  the  more  important  of  the  year's  grist  of 
legislation  affecting  pharmacy.  Some  minor  changes  and  attempted 
changes  have  been  reported  from  other  States,  but  the  writer  has 
not  yet  been  able  to  procure  definite  information  concerning  them. 
JUDICIAL  DECISIONS. 
An  interesting  decision  has  been  had  in  Iowa  upon  the  responsi- 
bility of  a  vendor  for  injury  caused  by  dangerous  articles  sold  with- 
out giving  notice  of  their  dangerous  qualities. 
In  this  case  (the  Torbet  case)  the  plaintiff  called  for  phosphorus, 
which  he  received,  properly  labeled,  but  being  injured  because  of 
his  ignorance  of  the  properties  of  the  stuff,  brought  suit  on  the 
ground  that  the  druggist  was  negligent  in  not  giving  notice  of  the 
dangerous  qualities  of  the  article  supplied.  The  court  says :  "  When 
a  person  who  has  reached  the  age  of  discretion,  and  who  is  appar- 
ently in  the  possession  of  his  mental  laculties,  applies  to  a  druggist 
for  a  certain  drug,  he  represents  to  the  dealer  by  implication  at  least 
that  he  knows  its  properties  and  uses  and  that  he  is  a  fit  person  to 
