The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1895-12-13


5 a jury OF iEquisitiun III Superior Court
THE morning gava verdict OF SOL. rs IN
favor OF the plaintiff In the suit of Edw.
HAT vs.. J, G. EcNaughton Il Co., of
Philadelphia rhe oetion yns TO recover
I far goods delivered. john Bigge appear
ed fof tho platciiff.
The same Jury gnvc William Davidson
verdict to the amount OF S730.25 suit
against james Carrow for work and ma
terinls furnished In erecting monument
IN Old Swedes cemetery the Cost oil which
was $3.50. William s. Eilles appeared for
tie plaintiff and samuel McCauliey and
Levi c. Bird the defendant. Counsel had
agreed upon the amount,
Ito case OF Arthur L. Cameron Drug
gist ae Fourth aud Franklin streete. Va.
Er. NJ. +. Cochran was next called.
William 3. Htlies and Peter l.. Cooper
represented the plaintiff and II. H. Ward
lite defendant. lyon motion of Mr..
Hiiles the MARI was amended by adding
The words ''he don't know hls business
anyhow" A jury was drawn. and after
several challenges was sworn. Tho cage
w6s then begun.
The case Is one OF alleged Islander. .ths
pluintin on JaLuary %. 1875. having COM
pounded prescription for DIR. Corkran.
according to direction, which caused
serious lilness TO u patient The circula-
lion OF tho alleged report by Dr. Corkran
to the effect that the druggist did not
he trade, and IL IL to recover an amount
Tor Injury done by the alleged slanderous
remarks by tie defendant the plaintiff
sues.
AIR. Cameron wac sworn. He is r
pharmacist OF eight years experienced,
live yeurs OF the period baiEg SERVED with
Philadelphia drug house. He is q
lieeiscd pharmacist uncer the law of
Delaware on January 20. Mrs. Dennis
Keilehcr handed TO kiln prescription
which he ordered his clerk to compound,
which was done properly.
The prescription as compounded and
returned by DIR. Corzran was talfon to tbs
store OF N. Is. Daufcrth and analyzed.
1ho prescription was again compoundeg
by CLERK III The Dnuforth store and bots.
compounds were precisely tho same. The
prescription was then offered In evidence
and was accepted. the defendants making
no Objection.
About three days aiter the prescription
had been compounded the witness went
to DIR. COrkran'a oflca and wanted to
know what was wrong with tie medicine,
The doctor replied that lie did not kno ".
Mr. Cameron then asked him II hs had
not said that tho mediclno had not been
Improperly compounded at his store, to
which he replied that he did not think he
had used the words. Inc witness was
given half the medicine aud left The doc
tors office.
Air. Hooper asked tho wltness that II al
the time the prescription was mpound.
Ell he was u registered pharmacist of the
State. but before tie witness could reply
Mr.. Ward objected. Argument followed
aud when tho court heard 1t ihsy report.
ed q disagreement. The question was al
lowed by the rlsjority OF ;he court and
MIR. Cameron replied that lle was.
The cross examination brought out the
fhct That the mltnes3 had compounded
the prescription himself on the day he
called upon the doctor. lie tested hls
own compound and sthat of his eierk's
and found them alike.
The Witnegs admitted that although the
medicine contained bi.euiphats OF qginine
| 1t would have tasted tho sumo us had n
| contained sulphato OF qulnine. The wit
nsss was on tho s;tnd at tho hour Of
| recess.