SUBSTITUTION  OF  EXT.  OF  BELLADONNA  FOR  EXT.  OF  DANDELION.  73 
These  gentlemen  are  now  investigating  the  most  efficient 
modes  of  purifying  this  metal ; — a  metal  which  has  rendered  im- 
portant service  to  science,  and  which  bids  fair  to  be  of  still  greater 
value,  if  efficient  means  could  be  devised  for  obtaining  it  at  a 
cheaper  rate. 
In  conclusion,  they  are  of  opinion  that  the  modifications  above 
suggested  in  Brunner's  process,  are  not  the  only  ones  of  which 
it  is  susceptible  ;  but  they  feel  convinced  that  no  important  im- 
provement can  be  effected,  except  by  close  adherence  to  the  prin- 
ciples above  laid  down ;  that  is  to  say,  by  renouncing  the  use  of 
spacious  receivers, — ceasing  to  condense  the  vapors  in  the  re- 
tort tube, — and  observing  closely  the  precautions  above  pointed 
out. — Annals  of  Pharmacy,  Feb.  1852. 
ACCIDENTAL  SUBSTITUTION  OF  EXTRACT  OF  BELLADONNA  FOR 
EXTRACT  OF  DANDELION.— PROSECUTION  OF  THE  MANU- 
FACTURER. 
The  New  York  Journal  of  Pharmacy,  for  November,  contains 
the  report  of  a  trial — Samuel  Thomas,  jr.,  and  Mary  Ann  Thomas 
his  wife,  against  Hosea  Winchester — in  the  Court  of  Appeals. 
Ruggles,  Chief  Judge.  It  appears  that  the  so-called  extract  of 
dandelion  was  manufactured  for  the  defendant  by  A.  Gilbert,  whose 
name  appeared  on  the  label,  but  that  by  some  error  in  putting  up 
the  article,  ajar  of  extract  of  belladonna  was  inadvertently  sub- 
stituted for  one  of  dandelion.  .  The  defendant  sold  it  to  Jas.  S. 
Aspinwall,  druggist,  New  York,  who  in  turn  sold  it  to  Dr.  Foord, 
a  physician  and  druggist  of  Cazenovia,  Madison  county,  who  fur- 
nished it  to  plaintiff,  for  his  wife,  on  the  prescription  of  her  phy- 
sician. 
"  The  defendant,  on  the  trial,  insisted  that  Aspinwall  and  Foord 
were  guilty  of  negligence  in  selling  the  article  in  question, 
for  what  it  was  represented  to  be  in  the  label ;  and  that  the 
suit,  if  it  could  be  sustained  at  all,  should  have  been  brought  against 
Foord.  The  Judge  charged  the  jury  that  if  they,  or  either  of 
them,  were  guilty  of  negligence  in  selling  the  belladonna  for  dan- 
delion,  the  verdict  must  be  for  defendant,  and  left  the  question  of 
their  negligence  to  the  jury,  who  found  on  that  point  for  the  plain- 
tiff. If  the  case  really  depended  on  the  point  thus  raised,  the  ques- 
7 
