142 
Editorial. 
<  Am.  Jour.  Pha.rh. 
\     Mar.  1, 1874. 
Mr.  Mackay  has  made  tincture  of  larch  bark  as  far  back  as  30  years  ago. 
The  bark  should  be  deprived  of  the  outer  portion,  and  of  the  woody  fibre  some- 
"times  adhering  to  it. 
Professor  Attfield  asked  whether  the  Pharmacopoeia  would  indicate  the  fine- 
ness of  powder  in  which  areca  nut  was  to  be  used;  but  Professor  Redwood 
thought  this  not  likely,  except,  perhaps,  for  the  purpose  of  making  tinctures, 
-&c. ;  however,  some  pharmacists  laid  great  stress  on  the  very  minute  division 
-of  substances  administered  as  powders,  and  now-a-days,  as  a  rule,  they  were 
reduced  to  the  finest  state  of  division. 
te*Mr.  Urwick  had  found  finely  powdered  areca  nut  without  effect  on  pointer 
dogs,  while  the  coarse  powder  proved  effectual. 
Mr.  Umney  said  areca  nut  could  be  obtained  in  a  powder  which  would  pass 
through  a  sieve  having  140  meshes  per  linear  inch,  powdered  rhubarb  through 
a  sieve  of  180  or  190  divisions,  while  powdered  caraway  would  scarcely  pass 
through  a  sieve  much  finer  than  60  meshes  per  inch. 
Mr.  Candy  said  that  the  astringency  of  larch  bark  was  presumably  due  to 
tannin.  This,  therefore,  seemed  to  be  a  step  in  the  opposite  direction  to  what 
has  been  sometimes  advanced,  namely,  the  employment  of  active  principles 
instead  of  crude  substances.  It  seemed  that  the  former  were  not  always  as 
active  as  the  latter,  or  there  would  be  no  necessity  for  introducing  this  article. 
(SMtorial  department 
Prosecution  under  the  New  York  Pharmacy  Act. — In  the  early  part  of 
January,  eight  apothecaries,  who  had  refused  to  be  registered  in  compliance 
with  the  law,  were  arrested,  and  afterwards  fined  $50  and  costs. 
Legal  Decision  against  the  Proprietor  of  a  Quack  Medicine. — We  are 
indebted  to  the  American  Agriculturist  for  an  advance  proof  of  the  following 
decision  by  Judge  Davis,  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  New  York  : 
January  General  Term. 
David  Richards, 
Plff.  and  Appt.     Davis,  P.  J. 
VS.  ■  DONOHUE  AND  DANIELS, 
Orange  Judd  and  others,  /.  J. 
Deft,  and  Respt. 
Appeal  from  order  of  Special  Term,  striking  out  the  complaint  in  this  action, 
and  dismissing  the  same  with  costs,  for  plaintiff's  refusal  to  answer  certain  ques- 
tions propounded  to  him  as  a  witness  pursuant  to  the  order  of  the  Court. 
John  L.  Walker  for  plaintiff;  Amos  G.  Hull  for  respondent. 
Davis,  P.  J. : 
The  plaintiff  alleges  in  his  complaint,  in  substance,  that  he  is  and  has  for 
many  years  been  the  sole  proprietor,  owner  and  manufacturer  of  articles  of 
medicines  and  merchandise  generally  and  publicly  known  as  Dr.  Richau's 
Golden  Remedies,  which  he  has  for  ten  years  last  past  manufactured  and  put 
up  and  offered  for  sale  and  sold,  and  that  by  means  of  extensive  advertising 
and  the  good  qualities  of  such  Golden  Remedies  he  has  secured  large  sales 
and  profits. 
