EDITORIAL. 
189 
but of the medical profession in general." If the character of the honorable 
Member is judged by the spirit manifested in his Journal, we can readily 
believe his elevation to a seat in Parliament will prove advantageous to the 
professions alluded to, and equally so to any other interests that come with- 
in the legitimate sphere of action of a member of the House. We know of 
no editor more fearless in the discharge of his peculiar duty, or in the ad- 
vocation of the rights of the profession he represents. 
Trial and Sentence of an Apothecary tor a Mistake, Kesulting in 
Death. — Many of our readers may recollect the occurrence of a fatal error 
in dispensing a prescription, at a store in Moyamensing, some months 
since, and which was fully noticed in the public papers at the time. 
The prescription called for thirty grains of sulphate of quinia, to be 
divided into five or sis parts. The proprietor of the store was absent from 
the city, and left his establishment in charge of his two assistants, both stu- 
dents of medicine, one having been in the store for some length of time, the 
other for a shorter period. Unfortunately, it fell to the lot of the latter to 
dispense the prescription, his senior, to whom properly belonged the duty, 
being pre-engaged, but in the store. By a most unaccountable confusion of 
ideas, or absence of mind, the young man took the sulphate of morphia 
bottle (which was labelled) weighed out the potent salt, and dispensed 
it, impressed with the idea that he was handling sulphate of quinia. 
A dose was administered to the patient, a young lady of eighteen, and had 
time to work its fatal consequences, unchecked by treatment, before the 
attendants were attracted by unusual convulsive symptoms, which induced 
them to send for the physician. The latter at once surmised there was 
something wrong, went to the apothecary, asked to see the prescription, 
and, finding it correct, called for the vessel from which the powder had been 
taken, when, true to his previous infatuation, the young man handed the 
bottle of sulphate of morphia, and not until the physician called his atten- 
tion to the label did the appalling truth flash upon him. The poisoning, 
despite the most unremitting endeavours of the medical gentlemen, ter- 
minated fatally. 
In process of time a true bill was found by the Grand Jury against the 
young man and his employer, notwithstanding the latter was absent from 
the city at the time of the mistake. When the case reached the Court, 
William McFadden (the assistant) plead guilty, per accident, which at 
once relieved his employer from the unpleasant and unjust position in 
which circumstances had placed him. The jury brought in a verdict of 
involuntary manslaughter against the defendant. 
In our opinion the Grand Jury committed an error of judgment in impli- 
cating the employer, until they had proved that his proper substitute and 
responsible agent, the elder of the assistants, was incapable of attending to the 
duties of the shop, in a correct and efficient manner. If his first assistant was 
