398 
Editorial. 
(Am.  Jour.  Phabm. 
\     Aug.  1, 1874. 
more  weighty.  On  perusing  the  two  papers,  however,  we  fail  to  discover  any- 
other  tangible  reason  except  the  abuse  that  may  arise  from  it,  either  through 
the  use  of  G.  P.  by  persons  not  really  authorized  to  it,  or  through  the  lowering 
of  the  standard  of  graduation  and  the  establishment  of  "grist  mills,"  conferring* 
titles  to  the  best  bidders. 
We  have  very  little  fear  of  the  evil  consequences  hinted  at,  as  long  as  the 
Colleges  of  Pharmacy  and  the  Pharmaceutical  Associations  remain  true  to 
their  objects,  and  do  not  hesitate  to  express  their  disapproval  at  any  attempt 
of  avoidance  of  obligations,  lowering  of  standard  or  arrogant  assumption. 
In  the  April  number  of  the  American  Journal  of  Pharmacy  for  1871,  which 
closed  the  editorial  labors  of  the  late  Professor  Procter,  he  has,  by  invitation, 
publicly  expressed  his  views  on  pharmaceutical  titles,  stating  that  it  is  desirable 
to  avoid  the  adoption  and  use  of  any  titles,  for  common  use  by  pharmacists, 
that  will  conflict '  with  those  of  the  medical  profession.  In  suggesting  to  the 
the  American  pharmacists  the  careful  perusal  of  this  paper,  we  feel  assured 
that  they  will  find  in  it  much  food  for  reflection  upon  titles  adapted  to  pharma- 
cists, and  likewise  upon  their  proper  use.  In  the  main,  we  believe  that  the 
views  expressed  here,  will  coincide  with  those  entertained  by  our  predecessor 
in  the  editorial  chair. 
Responsibility  for  Mistakes  made  in  Drug  Stores  — In  the  month  of 
April  last  a  sensational  item  was  published  by  the  daily  papers  stating  that  a 
wholesale  drug  house  in  Boston  had  been  fined  in  damages  to  the  amount  of 
$15,000  for  having  sold  to  an  apothecary  in  Fall  River  a  package  of  ground 
aconite,  which  had  been  erroneously  marked  "picra  ;"  one  ounce  of  this  aconite 
having  been  sold  as  picra  by  a  clerk  of  the  apothecary  to  a  lady,  whose  life  was 
endangered  thereby.  This  statement  appeared  to  be  so  extremely  absurd  that 
we  have  been  at  some  pains  to  get  at  the  merits  of  the  case,  and  now  lay  the 
information,  as  obtained  by  us  from  different  sources,  before  our  readers,  pre- 
mising that  we  have  been  unable  to  obtain  a  record  of  the  entire  evidence,  or 
the  rulings  and  charges  of  the  court. 
It  appears  that  Mr.  Henry  G.  Webster,  of  Fall  River,  sent  a  lengthy  order 
for  drugs  to  Messrs.  Weeks  &  Potter,  of  Boston  ;  2  It)  of  ground  aconite  root 
was  on  the  first  part,  and  2  ft)  of  picra  on  the  last  part  of  the  order.  It  is- 
claimed  that  the  articles  were  put  up  in  the  order  in  which  they  were  written 
down,  and  that  the  appointments  and  general  management  of  the  store  are 
such  as  to  render  it  next  to  impossible  that  a  mistake  in  labelling  could  have 
occurred,  under  the  circumstances  mentioned. 
At  a  time  when  Mr.  Webster's  store  was  temperarily  in  charge  of  his  clerk, 
Arthur  H.  Brown,  who  had  previously  served  an  apprenticeship  of  about  two 
years  in  different  places,  M  rs.  Black  sent  for  one  ounce  of  picra,  and  M  r.  Brown 
opened  a  bundle  at  the  end  to  shake  out  the  required  quantity.  The  customer 
objected  that  the  article  did  not  look  like  picra  and  was  answered  by  the  clerk  that 
it  was  all  right ;  it  was  picra  root.  Mrs.  Black  steeped  the  coarse  powder  in  a  pint 
of  gin  for  about  twelve  hours,  and  then  took  two  teaspoonfuis  of  the  liquor, 
when  she  at  once  discovered,  from  the  taste,  that  the  article  was  not  picra,  and 
sent  for  her  physician,  who  promptly  relieved  her,  so  that  in  a  few  days  she 
was  as  well  as  usual.  Mrs.  Black  then  brought  suit  for  damages  against  the 
wholesale  house,  the  principal  witness  being  the  clerk.  The  defence,  it  appears, 
rested  mainly  upon  the  management  of  the  wholesale  store  and  upon  the  theory 
that  the  clerk,  after  discovering  his  mistake,  exchanged  the  wrappers  of  the 
two  bundles.    The  verdict  was  for  $1500  (not  $15,000)  damages. 
Assuming,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  mistake  in  labelling  the  bundle 
