TEST FOR THE PURITY OF COPAIVA BALSAM.

A. A. Stilwell, a New York dealer in essential oils, has sent out a circular with regard to the test which he recommended to his customers. According to some the test can be nullified by the addition of 25 per cent. of rosin, but Stilwell says that such an addition would render the balsam so thick that its appearance alone would be sufficient to condemn it. Mr. Stilwell repeats his assertion that all pure balsam, except Para Balsam or similar thin, limpid balsam, will answer the test, which is applied as follows:

In a test tube put two and a half parts of balsam, and one part of Aqua Ammonia 20° (U.S.P.), cork and shake thoroughly. If pure, the balsam will at first become cloudy; then, immediately becomes transparent and remains so. If impure, it will remain cloudy and opaque.

Since our last issue the Privy Council in England have rendered judgment in this now celebrated case. This case has been frequently referred to in our columns, so that most of our readers are familiar with it. Briefly stated it is as follows. In Feb'y., 1894, the wife of Dr. England, of Montreal, was suffering from some stomach trouble and the Dr., wishing to administer Bismuth Subnit. telephoned to the firm of H. J. Dart & Co. for 2 oz of the drug. A parcel marked Bismuth Trisnit. was sent over and a dose taken from it administered to Mrs. England. Shortly after swallowing it she realized that it was not bismuth. This proved to be correct, for on investigation it proved to be tartar emetic. Medical aid was secured, but she died a few days after. Dr. England brought action against Dart & Co. claiming damages for himself and son. It then transpired that the container from which the drug was sold had been received a few days previous from Kerry, Watson & Co. containing tartar emetic and labeled “Bismuth Subnit." Dart & Co. pleaded that the fault was on the part of Kerry, Watson & Co. The action was then dropped and a new one commenced against Kerry, Watson & Co., with damages set at $20,000. This case was tried by a jury who found for the doctor and his son, with damages for the latter of $1,000. During the trial evidence was put in to show that Mrs. England had not died from the effect of the medicine but from previous disease, accelerated by the tartar emetic, though not to an "appreciable extent." Both parties were dissatisfied with this verdict. Dr. England applied for a new trial and the defendants moved for judgment in their In Nov., 1896, the Superior Court sit

f avor.

ting in review gave judgment in favor of Kerry, Watson & Co., and dismissed the doctor's application for a new trial on the ground that he had failed to show that the defendants were guilty of any fault in law toward him, or that they were responsible to him in the matter. Dr. England immediately appealed from this decision to the Court of Queen's Bench, who is Sept., 1897, reversed the superior court decision and ordered a new trial. From this ruling Kerry, Watson & Co. appealed to the Privy Council, who have now reversed this past decision and restored the order of the Court of Review.

The importance of this case in its bearing on the responsibility of pharmacists has been entirely lost sight of in the legal battle over the question as to what should have been the proper judgment following the jury's finding, and the only thing decided is that Mrs. England's death was not caused by the tartar emetic but from previous diseases.

The trial court's findings are contained in the replies to a number of questions submitted to the jury.

Those material to the appeal, with the answers to them, are as follows:- "3rd. Was the death of said Carrie Ann Galer caused by her taking a dose of tartar emetic in mistake for subnitrate of bismuth, on or about the 9th day of said month of February? It was accelerated, but not to any appreciable extent. 4th. Was the said tartar emetic supplied to the plaintiff by Henry J. Dart and Co., druggists, upon an order for bismuth, and was the package in which the same was contained marked 'Bismuth Trisnit, 2 ounces?' Yes. 6th. Was the supply of the said tartar emetic in said package marked 'Bismuth Subnit' by the defendants to the said Henry J. Dart and Co. due to neglect, carelessness, want of skill, and fault of the defendants or their employees? Yes. 8th. At the time of the administration of the dose mentioned in Question 3, and previous thereto, was the plaintiff's wife suffering from an illness known as 'La Grippe?" Yes. 9th. Was the death of the plaintiff's wife caused by the last mentioned illness or by disease, independently of said dose of tartar emetic? From previous disease, but ac10th. celerated by the tartar emetic. Has the plaintiff suffered any damage by reason of the death of the wife, and, if so, to what amount? No. 11th. Has the plaintiff's minor child suffered any damages by the death of his mother, and, if so, to what amount? Yes. $1,000, one thousand dollars. E. A. Whitehead, Foreman. " Dr. England's ground for asking a new trial is contained in questions 3 and 9.

As to Question 3:-"The said answer is inconclusive and inconsistent, and in so far as the same states that the death of the late Dame Carrie Ann Galer was not accelerated to an appreciable extent by the taking of the said dose of tartar emetic the said answer is unsupported by proof, and is contrary to the evidence adduced. The answer to the ninth question, insofar as it purports to show that the death of the plaintiff's wife was caused by previous disease, is unsupported by proof, and is contrary to evidence adduced.”

and also that Nos. 10 and 11 are contradictory. The following is the Privy Council's summing up after reviewing the case from its inception :

"Their Lordships are not called upon to pronounce any opinion as to the question of privity, nor has it been argued at the bar. It may be assumed on this occasion that a lien de droit has been established between the parties. The question is whether any right to damages by the complaining parties has been established by the findings of the jury. The sole reason assigned for ordering a new trial is that the findings of the jury Nos. 10 and 11 are contradictory. Their Lordships cannot see the contradiction. What the jury find is that Dr. England suffered no damage by reason of the death of his wife, while his son suffered thereby to the amount of $1,000. Why should not those two findings stand together? They may be wrong or against evidence, but that is not the ground taken for the new trial. It is easily conceivable that the death of a woman may cause pecuniary loss to her child, and none to her husband; and that is what the jury have found.

Their Lordships cannot agree with the learned Judges that the jury have awarded $1,000 to the boy. They have awarded nothing. It is common enough to take the opinion of a jury as to the amount of damages suffered, leaving it for the Court to say whether on all the facts of the case the plaintiff can recover it from the defendant. That is the effect of the proceedings at this trial. If the findings do not establish the requisite connection between the defendants and plaintiffs, as held by the Court of Review, no damage can be recovered. If they do, as the Court of Queen's Bench hold, there ought to be a judgment for such damages as the other findings justify, and for no more. As the jury have found that the death of Mrs. England was not accelerated by the poison to any appreciable extent, it follows as a legal consequence that the damage attributable to the defendant is inappreciable. It cannot be appreciable for the boy any more than for his father. As regards the father, he has suffered no pecuniary loss; the son has suffered loss estimated at $1,000, but the extent to which the defendants have caused it is inappreciable, or, in other words, is nothing at all which a Court of Justice can recognize. No damages being recoverable, it is right to dismiss the action as the Court of Review has done. A large part of the argument for the plaintiff was taken up with an attempt to displace findings Nos. 3 and 9 on the ground that they are against evidence, and their Lordships' attention was called in detail to the evidence on the point. They do not feel it necessary to comment on it in detail. They agree entirely with the position taken by the Court of Queen's Bench-that whatever might be the opinion they would form if they were the jury, the conclusion to which the jury have come was quite open to them on the evidence and cannot properly be disturbed. Their Lordships will humbly advise Her Majesty to discharge the order appealed from, with costs, and to restore that of the Court of Review. The respondents must pay the costs of this appeal.

PARKE DAVIS & Co's. POSITION.

The above firm desire us to state for the benefit of their patrons throughout the Dominion that they have taken action to have set aside as illegal the Patent on Antitoxin recently granted to Professor Behring, by the United States patent office. While the case is in the courts, they wish it to be understood that they stand prepared to protect any and every Customer in handling their goods. They do not anticipate any interference with their business in the Dominion; no patent is registered here, nor is it in the least probable that such can be secured under our laws.

THE BRITISH PHARMACEUTICAL

CONFERENCE.

He

For the second time in its history the B. P. Conference has met in Ireland, and judging from reports in our English contemporaries the meeting has been a most successful one. The meetings were held in Queen's College, Belfast. The address of the President, Dr. Chas. Symes, of Liverpool, was a scholarly paper on pharmacy, and its needs, aims, etc. touched on the new pharmacopoeia, metric weights and measures, and synthetic remedies. At the end of his address he feelingly referred to the great loss which English pharmacy had sustained in the death of Michael Conroy, "a former Vice-President, an active member of the conference and an Irishman withal," and also to the death of Dr. de Vry.

After the usual routine business, the following list of papers was taken up:

"Kieselguhr," by John Moss.

"Note on Oil of Eucalyptus," by E. J. Parry. "Gluten Flour and its analysis,

G. L. Fielden.

by Victor

"Green Extracts of the Pharmacopoeia, by W. A. Naylor and J. J. Bryant.

"The Commercial Varieties of Dill and their Essential Oils," by John Umney.

"A new constituent of Oil of Lemon," by John C. Umney and R. S. Swinton.

"A Quick Polarimetric method for the estimation of Strophanthin in the B. P. Tincture and Extract, " by Ed. Douzard.

"Notes on Commercial Oil of Lemon," by T. H. W. Idris.

"Note on Extract of Ginger," by the same. "The salient features of the Irish Flora," by G. C. Druce

"The amount of Carbonic Anhydride available in the official granular effervescent Preparation," by C. S. Dyer.

"Albumen and some types of Proteid Digestion,'

by Gordon Sharp.

"Thyroglandin," by E. C. C. Stanford. "Materia Medica Animalis," by J. C. McWalters. "Ferrum Reduction, " by E. Savile Peck. "Basicity of Quinine Sulphate," by D. and D. Lloyd Howard.

"The Characters and Methods of Estimation of the Official Hypophosphites," by H. A. D. Jowett. "Pharmacists and the Pharmacopoeia," P. Mac

Ewan.

"Galenical Pharmacy of the 1898 Pharmacopoia," by F. C. J. Bird.

"The Galenicals of the Pharmacopoeia from a Wholesaler's Point of View," by H. Wippell Gadd. "The Nomenclature of certain drugs of the Pharmacopoeia," by G. C. Druce.

"The chemistry of the Pharmacopœia," by P. Kelly.

"The Pharmacopoeia chemically considered," by A. L. Doran.

A long list of papers, all of which evolved interesting discussions.

Plymouth was selected as the next meeting place. The following officers were elected : President, J. C. C. Payne, Belfast; Vice-Presidents, Walter Hills, London; Jno. Moss, London; R. J. Downes, Dublin; C. J. Park, Plymouth; Treasurer, J. C. Umney, London; Hon. General Secretaries, W. A. H. Naylor and H. R. Ranson, London; Hon. Local Secretary, J. Davey Turney, Plymouth.

ACID AND HEAT RESISTING CEMENT. Powdered asbestos is mixed with a boiling solution of sodium silicate. When cool the mixture is powdered and mixed with aluminium hydrate or calcium sulphate, dried and mixed with solution of alum.

"APENTA" AND THE CUBAN WAR.

In view of the outbreak of Yellow Fever among the troops in Cuba we venture to suggest that the following copy of a letter received from the Touro Infirmary, New Orleans, is of general interest.

Touro Infirmary, New Orleans, Oct. 8, 1897. "United Agency Co., New York.

DEAR SIRS: I have the pleasure of informing you that during the present Yellow Fever we have used with success in the wards of our Infirmary your Apenta Water.

Would you kindly send us at once 150 small bottles with bill, making the price as low as you pos sibly can. Very respectfully,

(Signed) D. GOLDSTEIN, Clerk. We might add that Surgeon General Sternberg, of the United States army, forwarded, through the Medical Supply Depot, large quantities of the "Apenta" Aperient Water to the United States General Hospital near Santiago, Cuba.

Editorial Notes.

A short time ago the habit of using ether as an intoxicant was said to be growing in some Irish cities. Now a Berlin paper announces that intoxication by means of ether has become almost epidemic in Lithuania, owing to the fact that ether is cheaper than brandy and less of it is needed to get drunk on. Many families have been ruined by the habit, which has also found victims even among school children.

During the past month we had occasion to examine a sample of oil, sold by a wholesale paint and oil firm and labelled "No. 1, Castor Oil." The color was rather more yellow than that of any genuine castor oil we had seen; the smell would indicate a petroleum origin. On further examination we found the specific gravity to be less than that of castor oil, while the solubility in absolute alcohol was nil. This so-called No. 1 castor oil was nothing but a petroleum distillate. Where is the adulteration act? and what are the public analysts doing that such a bare-faced, scandalous fraud can be perpetrated? The feasibility of such a proceeding calls for well merited punishment.

Pharmacists throughout the States are outspoken with regard to the conduct of patent medicine men making them pay the increased cost of the war revenue stamps, which in all justice should be borne by the manufacturers. When the former stamp tax was repealed by the efforts of the retail druggists, the manufacturers did not lower their prices correspondingly, and now that a similar tax has been reimposed the majority of the makers wish to make the retailers pay it. It is only adding one more to the score which retailers have against them, and which they will have to settle when combined action on the part of the druggists is taken against them.

Dr. J Bennett Morrison reports in the New York Medical Journal a case of poisoning by fluid extract of belladonna, in which 96 minims of the preparation had been taken by mistake. When the doctor arrived some hours after the medicine had been taken, he found the patient excited and delirious, pupils dilated, the pulse was 180 and the respirations about ten a minute and very shallow. Apomorphine was administered, followed by pilocarpine hydrochloride / gr., strychnine 1-15 gr., caffeine 5 grs., and ammonia water 45 minims in three injections. Artificial respiration, whiskey, salt solution, were tried in turn, and after four hours of hard and continuous effort the patient was declared