9o 
Preparation  of  Suppositories. 
( Am.  Jour.  Pharru. 
\        Feb..  1891. 
Evidently  the  only  dispute  can  exist  in  a  case  in  which  the  physician  and  the 
patient  have  parted  with  the  possession  of  the  paper,  and  it  has  lawfully  come 
into  the  hands  of  the  apothecary,  at  the  instance  of  the  patient. 
The  universal  practice  appears  to  me  to  point  where  the  title  is  for  all  pur- 
poses but  one.  I  presume  it  is  the  custom  to  refill  a  bottle  with  a  prescription 
indicated  on  the  label.  The  patient  is  not  required  to  purchase  a  new  prescrip- 
tion every  time  he  wishes  the  order  filled — and  this  appears  to  me  plain,  from 
the  consideration  that  he  could  secure  this  by  copying  the  paper  before  using  it. 
Moreover,  he  has  paid  for  the  composition  and  skill  required  for  that  pur- 
pose, and  the  delivery  to  the  apothecary  is  for  a  particular  object,  and  there  is 
in  that  transaction  nothing  implying  a  transfer  of  property  in  anything  by  the 
patient  to  the  apothecary. 
But  the  practice  certainly  is  for  the  apothecary  to  retain  the  documents.  I 
presume  no  one  ever  heard  of  a  prescription  being  returned  with  the  dose  to 
the  patient. 
It  is  obvious  there  is  nothing  indicative  of  a  sale  or  transfer  of  title  on  that 
footing  in  this  transaction.  There  is  something  analogous  in  respect  of  a  check. 
The  return  of  these  instruments  arises  out  of  distinct  considerations.  Accepted 
bills  are  never  returned  to  the  drawer  if  paid. 
Then  there  is  a  consideration  which  I  consider  conclusive,  seeing  that  the 
thing  is  open  to  a  contract,  and  the  parties  have  chosen  to  make  none.  If 
under  this  view  of  the  case  the  usage  is  not  of  itself  conclusive,  I  think  the 
apothecary  has  the  right  to  retain,  to  warrant  himself,  if  a  question  shall  arise, 
as  to  correctness  of  conduct. 
I  may  add — the  claimant  must  always  show  his  title — if  the  title  be  in 
equipoise  he  must  fail. 
It  also  occurs  to  me  that  this  paper  is  merely  a  substitute  for  a  verbal  direc- 
tion, and  no  doubt  there  are  multitudes  of  verbal  orders  filled  that  might  be 
written . 
On  the  whole,  I  should  think  there  ought  to  be  no  doubt  that  the  apothe- 
cary may,  if  he  sees  fit  and  is  foolish  enough  to  run  the  risk,  put  the  paper  in 
the  fire.  There  can  be  no  half-way  measure,  he  either  owns  it  absolutely,  or 
not  at  all.  There  can  be  no  duty  to  produce  it  for  inspection,  or  to  give  copies, 
while  it  would  be  silly  to  refuse  to  do  so  when  reasonably  demanded. 
It  is  very  unusual  in  this  country  to  look  to  the  consequence  of  a  rule.  It 
may  be  well  to  do  so.  If  the  patient  is  the  owner,  he  may  at  any  time  within 
six  years  demand  the  paper,  and  if  it  is  not  surrendered  sue  as  for  a  tortious 
conversion  of  his  property.  If  he  can't  do  this  he  certainly  has  no  title.  I 
would  ask  if  Executors  ever  inquired  for  prescriptions  given  his  testator  ;  if  they 
belong  to  the  testator,  they  are  assets.  R.  C.  McMurTrie. 
ON  THE  PREPARATION  OF  SUPPOSITORIES. 
By  II.  C.  Archibald,  Ph.G.,'  M.D. 
This  subject  is  one  on  which  pharmacists  hold  divergent  views. 
Some,  especially  the  old-time  class,  are  wedded  to  the  fusion  pro- 
cess ;  a  few  who  are  sufficiently  skilled  can  turn  out  a  tolerably  pre- 
sentable suppository  with  the  spatula  and  pill-tile.    But  the  vast 
