Am    Jour.  Pharm. 
Oct.,  1884. 
Editorials. 
557 
tion  of  some  respectable  inhabitant  of  full  age,  of  the  town  or  place  in 
which  such  sale  shall  be  made,  and  in  all  cases  of  such  sale  the  word  poison 
shall  be  carefully  and  legibly  marked  or  placed  upon  the  label,  package, 
bottle  or  other  vessel  or  thing  in  which  such  poison  is  contained  ;  and  when 
sold  or  disposed  of,  otherwise  than  under  the  prescription  of  a  physician, 
the  apothecary,  druggist  or  other  person  selling  or  disposing  of  the  same 
shall  note  in  a  register,  kept  for  the  purpose,  the  name  and  residence  of  the 
person  to  whom  such  sale  was  made,  the  quantity  sold,  and  the  date  of 
such  sale." 
We  have  been  familiar  with  this  law,  and  many  years  ago  have  con- 
versed with  some  of  our  most  reputed  pharmacists  upon  the  interpreta- 
tion of  the  words  "  sell  or  dispose  of  by  retail,"  and  it  has  been  held  by  all, 
that  they  were  used  with  the  view  of  excluding  physicians'  prescriptions 
for  medicines.  It  was  reserved  for  a  Deputy  Coroner  to  advance  the  theory 
that  the  latter  were  included.  Fortunately,  however,  Judge  Elcock  on 
September  19th,  rendered  a  decision,  directly  opposite  to  that  theory,  and 
fully  in  accord  with  common  sense,  with  universal  usage,  with  the  hitherto 
unquestioned  interpretation  of  the  law  and  with  the  evident  intention  of 
the  law  makers.  The  decision  appears  to  us  to  be  of  general  importance 
in  regard  to  the  practice  of  pharmacy,  and  we  therefore  give  it  in  full.  As 
to  the  propriety  of  reputable  physicians  prescribing  a  large  quantity  of  a 
poisonous  drug,  it  is  evidently  not  limited  or  questioned  by  the  law,  though 
prudence  may  often  dictate  a  safer  course.    Judge  Elcock  said  : 
"The  deceased,  Ann  Carroll,  being  bantered  to  take  some  of  the  pills  con- 
tained in  the  box,  took  fourteen  of  them  at  once,  and  several  other  persons 
took  from  eight  to  fifteen  of  them  each.  The  pills  were  sold  by  the  relator, 
who  was  in  the  employ  of  George  I.  McKelway,  a  druggist,  by  the  order 
or  prescription  of  Dr.  Walter  F.  Atlee,  and  were  labelled,  as  is  usual,  with 
the  druggist's  label  and  the  directions — '  Use  one  at  meals,  as  directed  by 
Dr.  Atlee.' 
"  Involuntary  manslaughter  is  when  it  plainly  appears  that  neither  death 
nor  any  great  bodily  harm  was  intended,  but  death  is- accidentally  caused 
by  some  unlawful  act  not  amounting  to  felony,  or  an  act  not  strictly  un- 
lawful in  itself,  but  done  in  an  unlawful  manner  and  without  due  caution. 
If,  therefore,  the  duty  rested  upon  the  relator  to  label  this  box  'poison,' 
the  failure  to  do  so  would  be  such  negligence  as  would  render  him  liable  to 
the  prosecution  started.  The  question  therefore  is,  Is  it  the  duty  of  a 
druggist  who  sells  a  poison  by  direction  of  a  physician  to  affix  thereon  the 
label  aforesaid  ?  A  construction  must  be  given  to  the  act  which  must  be  in 
accordance  with  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law.  By  the  report  of 
the  Commissioners  of  the  Penal  Code,  it  is  stated  that  '  it  was  enacted  to 
prevent  mistakes  in  the  sale  of  noxious  drugs  ;  to  throw  impediments  in 
the  way  of  malicious  and  wicked  persons  obtaining  them  for  murderous 
purposes,  and  to  facilitate  the  detection  of  such  persons  when  their 
malignant  purpose  has  been  accomplished.'  There  is  nothing,  therefore, 
in  the  intention  of  the  framers  of.  the  act  to  enact  any  law  which  would 
restrict  or  narrow  the  sale  of  the  drugs  for  legitimate  purposes  or  where 
directed  to  be  used  by  the  accustomed  mode  of  legal  practice  known  at  the 
time.  Two  modes  of  sale  are  provided  for,  one  by  the  prescription  of  a 
physician,  and  the  other  on  the  personal  application  of  a  respectable  in- 
habitant of  the  place.  The  prescription  furnishes  all  the  information  re- 
quired by  the  law,  and  all  that  is  given  wrhen  the  same  is  made  on  the  per- 
sonal application  of  the  inhabitant.  It  is  argued  that  the  plain  reading  of 
the  act  would  compel  any  one  selling  the  drugs  named  to  mark  them  as 
poison.  If  this  were  so  it  might  also  be  argued  that  any  compound  con- 
taining poison  should  also  be  so  marked,  and  thus  any  sale  of  a  poison  in 
the  most  infinitesimal  quantity  require  the  same  labelling.  A  homoeopathic 
