344  Legislation  and  Judicial  Decisions.     { Am jui"omrm' 
whom  sale  thereof  may  be  made,  and  that  unless  there  is  something 
connected  with  the  transaction  or  something  previously  known  to 
the  seller,  indicating  that  the  would-be  purchaser  cannot  safely  be 
entrusted  with  the  substance,  a  sale  of  the  substance  called  for  may 
be  made  without  explaining  its  properties  or  the  manner  in  which  it 
may  be  safely  used  or  handled." 
This  decision  apparently  overthrows  the  doctrine  laid  down  in 
the  case  of  Wellington  vs.  Downer  (104  Mass.,  67),  where  the  court 
says :  "  It  is  well  settled  that  a  man  who  delivers  an  article  which 
he  knows  to  be  dangerous  or  noxious,  without  notice  of  its  danger- 
ous qualities,  is  liable  for  any  injury  which  may  reasonably  be  con- 
templated as  likely  to  result  therefrom  to  that  person  or  any  other 
who  is  not  himself  in  fault." 
This  was  a  case  where  naphtha  was  sold  to  a  person  ignorant  of 
its  nature,  and  who  was  injured  by  an  explosion.  The  injured  per- 
son was  held  entitled  to  recover  damages. 
A  decision  by  the  Kentucky  Court  of  Appeals  is  of  interest  in 
that  it  decides  that  the  prerogatives  of  a  physician  give  him  no 
right  to  sell  drugs  indiscriminately.  The  court  says  that  a  physi- 
cian "  cannot  sell  indiscriminately  to  persons  calling  for  prescrip- 
tions, nor  compound  drugs  and  sell  them  indiscriminately  to  all  who 
may  call  for  them." 
This  seems  just  doctrine,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  be  fqU 
Lowed  by  other  courts  which  may  have  to  pronounce  upon  such 
cases. 
Much  has  been  said  of  several  decisions  in  cases  brought  by  the 
Phenyo-Caffeine  Company  to  prevent  the  sale  of  their  goods  at  cut 
prices,  and  of  the  effect  which  these  decisions  will  have  upon  the 
so-called  Worcester  Plan,  made  famous  by  the  decision  in  the  case 
of  Garst  vs.  Harris,  decided  in  Massachusetts  about  a  year  ago. 
So  iar  as  we  can  determine  from  the  published  accounts,  these 
cases  do  not  in  the  least  infringe  upon  the  integrity  of  the  doctrine 
laid  down  in  Garst  vs.  Harris.  The  latter  case  established  the  doc- 
trine that  a  vendor  may  lawfully  contract  with  his  vendee  that  the 
latter  shall  not  sell  the  articles  bought  under  the  contract  below  a 
certain  price.  This  was  a  marked  departure  from  the  old  common- 
law  rule  that  all  contracts  restricting  prices  were  against  public 
policy  and  void,  and  the  decision  was  justly  hailed  as  a  great  step 
in  the  direction  of  price-protection.    The  later  decisions  referred 
