4I2 
Editorial. 
Am.  Jour.  Pharm* 
Aug.,  1878. 
A  number  of  witnesses  testify  they  should  read  the  so-called  ambiguous 
characters  in  the  written  prescription  of  Dr.  Didama  as  standing  for  ounce  A 
number  of  other  witnesses  testify  they  should  read  them  as  standing  for  drachm. 
All  the  physicians  swear  that  the  dose  as  put  up  would  be  very  unusual  as  a 
medicine,  and  it  appears  the  plaintiff  procured  the  medicine  of  the  defendant  in 
person,  and  informed  him  whom  and  what  it  was  for. 
It  appears  that  atropia  is  the  active  principle  of  a  vegetable  poison  called 
belladonna,  and  that  in  large  doses  it  is  fatal  to  human  life. 
Now,  gentlemen,  looking  at  this  written  prescription  with  the  so-called  ambiguous 
characters  and  the  context,  just  as  it  is  looking  at  the  fact  that  the  defendant  knew 
that  this  was  a  first  prescription  of  Dr.  Didama\s  for  the  defendant,  as  a  remedy  for 
the  complaint  from  which  he  was  suffering;  looking  at  the  character  of  this  drug  ; 
looking  at  the  degree  of  skill  the  defendant  ought  to  possess  in  view  of  his 
responsible  calling,  did  the  defendant  possess  and  exercise  that  degree  of  skill,  care 
and  prudence  in  reading  this  prescription  and  in  compounding  this  medicine  which 
a  man  of  competent  skill  and  extraordinary  caution,  care  and  prudence  would  have 
used  under  like  circumstances  ?  If  he  did,  then  he  performed  his  full  duty  and  no 
blame  can  be  attached  to  him,  and  the  action  must  fall  to  the  ground.  It  is  a  case 
of  pure  accident  which  always  have  happened  and  always  will  without  any  blame 
attaching  to  any  one.  If  he  did  not,  and  the  evil  consequences  which  ensued  are 
the  result  of  a  want  of  such  skill,  care  and  prudence  in  compounding  this  medicine, 
then  he  is  liable. 
If  you  find  that  he  is  liable,  then  you  will  proceed  to  the  question  of  damage. 
As  before  stated,  it  is  conceded  that  the  symptoms  which  are  claimed  to  have 
followed  immediately  upon  the  administration  of  this  drug  did  happen,  and> 
therefore,  the  jury  will  have  no  hesitancy  in  giving  the  plaintiff  such  damages  as 
will  fairly  compensate  him  for  the  suffering,  pain  and  distress  of  mind  and  body 
which  were  the  immediate  result  of  the  poisonous  dose,  and  the  only  question  for 
your  further  consideration  will  be  whether  the  more  or  less  permanent  results  which 
are  claimed  to  have  flowed  from  this  poisonous  dose,  such  as  inflammation  of  the 
stomach,  vomiting  and  partial  blindness  at  times,  and  partial  paralysis  of  the  lower 
extremities,  did  in  point  of  fact  take  place,  and  if  so,  whether  they  are  to  be 
attributed  to  this  poisonous  dose.  On  this  subject  Dr.  Moore,  a  witness  for  the 
plaintiff,  testified  :  "  It  might  produce  lasting  results, — from  an  eighth  of  a  grain  I 
should  expect  a  result  continuing  from  three  or  four  weeks  up  to  a  year." 
Dr.  D.  Wheden  testified  that  he  treated  the  plaintiff  some  time  after  the  poisonous 
dose  was  given.  "  I  formed  the  opinion  that  something  had  caused  an  acute 
inflammation  of  the  stomach.  Poisons  are  very  liable  to  cause  such  inflammations. 
I  think  an  eighth  of  a  grain  would  be  sufficient  to  account  for  it.  A  variety  of 
causes  might  have  produced  it." 
Dr.  William  C.  Doane,  a  witness  for  the  plaintiff,  testified — "  It  is  regarded  as  an 
evanescent  poison  5  we  expect  no  permanent  results;  I  should  expect  that  if  a  man 
did  r.ot  die  of  belladonna  he  would  recover  perfectly.  I  think  all  authors  agree  in 
this;  I  would  not  ascribe  inflammation  of  the  stomach  to  the  action  of  atropia. 
All  the  scientific  witnesses  sworn  on  the  part  of  the  defendant,  including  Dr. 
William  Plant,  Dr.  William  Manlius  Smith,  physician,  surgeon  and  chemist,  Dr. 
Pease  and  Dr.  Didama,  substantially  agree  with  Dr.  D  >ane  that  it  is  an  evanescent 
poison,  and  that  they  would  not  expect  any  permanent  results. 
Dr.  Didama  testified  that  what  is  said  in  Beck's  Medical  Jurisprudence  about  the 
appearance  of  inflammation  of  the  stomach,  upon  a  post  mortem  examination  after 
death,  by  this  drug,  had  been  corrected  by  late  writers.  These  witnesses  are  of  the 
opinion  that  poison  from  atropia  is  analogous  to  poison  from  alcohol,  when  a  man 
becomes  intoxicated.  When  he  becomes  sober,  he  is  as  well  as  before.  There  are 
no  permanent  results.  It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  medical  books  are  not 
evidence  of  themselves,  except  in  so  far  as  their  statements  are  borne  out  by  the 
medical  witnesses.    It  is  for  the  jury  to  find  upon  this  state  of  evidence  whether,. 
