The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-05-03
LEGAL xNTELL1GEMCn.
The Case of Joseph III. Bower.

The trial and conviction OF Joseph ii. Bower OF in
voluntary manslaughter has attracted considerable
attention among druggists. The defendant, young
man of twenty-four years of age, with eight years
active experience in a drug store and proven to be
of good character and attentive TO his business made
mistake in compoundlng prescription on the 3d
of November, 1868. Instead of furnishing assafOe-
tida as called for by the prescription which had
been compounded five or six times before by the de-
fendant and father, he supplied atropa Three
grams given in four pills, whereas One-sXth OF
grain is the largest dose ever given for medicinal
purposes The result was the death of Mrs. Sophia
HeCht
Judge Brewster in his charge to the jury, said:-
Gentlemen of the Jury-We of opinion that there
account shall not trouble. you with the definitions
of voluntary homicide, or OF any higher 0flense
The District Attorney has, according to views of
the case, very properly abandoned the first count
of the Indictment, and the only question, therefore,
is whether the defendant should be convicted or
acquitted of the remaining six counts, which, in
various forms, charge the otense Of involuntary
manslaughter. This crime Is thus defned:-''The
doing of an unlawful act not felonious nor tending
to great bodily harm, or doing lawful act without
proper cautious, or requisite SKILL whereby
undesignedly Kills another Greenl; on Eyid.,
y. 1881 The mixing of medicines for the relief or
cure OF the sick is clearly lawful act But the
law requires that no person should attempt
to deal out drugs as matter OF business profit
without competent knowledge or SKILL So, too, he
must not only possess knowledge and skill. but he
should employ those attributes to the best of his
ability, and failing herein, he should be held to
strict responsibility. We should deal, however with
human nature we find it, and hold no man liable
a criminal, unless he assume the duty of an en-
ployment knowing that he Is incompetent to dis
charge its functions or unless, possessing the
proper information, he fail to employ 1t.
The test therefore, in such cases, lies in the word
negligence. II man wholly ignorant Of the science
of medicine and chemistry undertakes for profit 10
compound prescription, and posons another, he
might be convicted Of voluntary manslaughter. SO,
too, If expert, he should undertake the same
delicate employment and mix the drugs in the dark,
while in state of intoNicaton, and thereby cause
death this might be evidence of such gross negli-
gence as would justify jury in finding a wantOn
and reckless disregard of life and here again the
oTense would be involuntary manslaughter.
nTt than fhar hon ~ 10 nd inn Tho
prescription was O skilful druggist and in proper
condition. but, by emitting SOME minor act of care
occasoned death, he would be guilty OF involuntary
mansaughteT
And still again, if, without any fault or want of
proper care the wrong drug found its way into the
medicine compounded, and death resulted, the act
would be simple misadventure, and not indlctable
1t is the duty of the Court in these cases, not
merely state general principles but to endeavor
assist the jury in the application OF the law to the
facts which is after all, the most difficult part Of
your labors. The defendants counsel has admitted
that the defendant made up this prescription, and
there is dispute of the fact that the taking of the
pills caused the death Of Mrs. Hecht.
The sole question then did the defendant ex-
ercise reasonable care in the reading of the word
called by the Commonwealth aSsGfotida' The case
has properly been so argued by the counsel on
both sides. The Commonwealth contends that the
word was plainly written-that the nature OF the
drug used was warning to the defendant and that
case Of negligence has been made out against him.
1t is urged upon the other side that the word is not
egiby written that it might be mistaken for afro
pid; that the defendant has devoted many years to
the study of his profession and that he enjoys
celent character for skill as druggist and for peace
as citizen. You will have the prescription with
you. You must examine it, and upon IL and all the
evidence in the case, ask yourselves this question
Did the defendant employ reasonable in the
preparation Of this medicine? ? This involves two
pOnts:-Flrst His reading OF the word referred TO-.
the drug he used. For though he innOcenty mistook
the language Of the prescription, yet If the exercise
of reasonable care would have warned him that he
! was preparing something which would inevitably
! KILL 1t would be criminal in him to go on.
! The inquiry then is:-Did he put in the proper
drugs. or make a mistake for his default herein
! would necessarily be crime. But the higher and
ruer test is the presence of reasonable care. pro-
fessiOnal man does not insure those who deal with
him against al contingencies. lie simply contracts
TO his skill and intelligence to the best of his
ability, and with all due fidelity. Measuring him and
his act by this standard 1t is for you to determine
the question Of his guilt or innocence. If you find
| an absence of this reasonable care, you must con-
Wet the defendant upon the last six counts OF the
| indictment. If you conclude that he was reasonably
careful, or have fair doubt OF his guilt you should
| acquit him.
Court of Quarter ScssiOns-AIIisOB, p. J..
| This morning the May term of the Court was
| opened. Having granted several excuses from ser
applicants his Honor found that he had only twelve
Grand Jurors and was forced TO discharge these un-
I'll tomorrow, IN order that the Sheriff might bring
| in others who had been summoned 10 attend.
The Petit Jury was formed but no cases were
taken up
Court of Common PIeus-Judge Peirce.
David L. Carpenter vs. Virginia II. Carpenter.
This Is suit in divorce upon the ground of deser-
ton the husband alleging that his wife left his house
ABOUT Two years ago and had not lived win nun
since. On trial.
District Court, No. 1-,JudRe ThRyer.
Thomas H. Monteith VS.. Joshua B. Luff. An action
OF repleYln to try the ownership of property ut NO
1929 Market street On trial.
District Court, No. 2-.Judge stroud.
Rudolph Stein VS.. Benjamin Scott Jr An action
TO recover Tor the printing of fifteen hundred
pamphlets of advertisements for Scotts sale of pic
lures The defense alleged that plantn had agreed
TO DO the work Tor much less than he claimed IN the
present suit On trial.
After the Jubilee the Boston Transcript pro-
poses grand musical demonstration by all the
hand-organs IN the city and suburbs.
M. Dreyschoek the pianist to the Emperor
of who was I'm nrO-