Evening journal., 1895-12-13

| lnQuieition made AWarCa IN Two Caeeh
This Morning Regular Jurors Dis
charged Untn Monday.
Superior Court met at 10 o'clock this
morning A jury Of iuquisition was
drawn TO assess the damages OF the
plaintiff in the case Of Edward Hart VS.
J. @. McNaughton & Co.. OF Philadelphia
John Biggs was lawyer for the plaintiff
and stated that the claim for goods sold
ana delivered was $01 73 Mr Hart was
| called to the stand and specified that
sum the amount the firms indebted
ness to him. AS soon as the papers
we're prepared the jury returned u yer
dict for the full amount
| William s. Hilles represented the
plaintiff, and Samuel w. McCaulley and
Levi @ Bird the defendant, In the case
OF William Davidson VS. James Carroll,
executor Of the late William Forrest A
| jury was drawn to determine the Gmicable
action.
Mr. HIlles said that the suit was to
enable the plaintiff TO recover for the
erection Of mouuL-ent aud vault ia Old
/ Swedes' Cemetery The claim was $3.50
with interest from November o. 1898
making the actual claim S73l % dc
stated that there Was no obisciion on the
other side to the money being paid, the
/ proceeding being necessary TO bind the
hands OF the deceased.
| Margaret Butler, = granddaughle OF OF
/ Mr. Forrest, testified that she heard her
/ gran diather order Davidson to do the
work aud he would pay for It. Acting
under Instructions from the court,
verdict for the plaintiff in the amount
above speci6-d was given by the jury.
Druggist After a Doctor
| After some delay the court took up the
i So 600 capias slRrder case Of Arthur T.
Cameron, druggist at Fourth and
Franklin streets, We Dr. Millard
Corkran. William Hilles, who is
Rss ocisted with Peter l.. Cooper, Jr, for
the plsintin, asked leave to amend the
narr in euch manner as 30 show that
the defendant said. THE druggist has
made q mistake, and does not know his
bushes, any yhow."
H. g. Wsrd, attorney for the defen
dant. not wishing TO carry the case over
another term, agreed TO allow the amend
ment TO be made, and Jury was drawn.
Then the ight Of the lawyers against
the doctor was begun In earnest some
challenges being made before the jury
box was filed.
Mr. Cooper outlined the case in his
opening he said that on January %
1895, Mis- Dennis Kellher took pre-
scriptlon to his store Jt was signed by
DR.. CoTkran It Was compounded BY B
Allen, Jr, skilled phsrnacist, CLERK IN
the store After the medicine was sd
ministered to the small child for which IL
was intended it became very much worse
and its parents feared that it was abont
to die Dr. Corkran was hurriedly
sent for and asked By the mother
what he had done to her child DE i'm
mediately asked TO see the medicine
When It was handed 60 him he
tasted IL and said "rAis prescription is
all wrong There has been a mistake
These druggists are careless people,
any how This fellow does not know his
business Hs then wrote another pre-
scriptlon. saying that il contained the
sams ingredients. aud advised her to 90
to another drug store. where she could
get it properly compounded
Mr. Cooper said that be wonld prove
that the two Prescriptions were not
alike; that the mistake which 80 neal y
cost the child tie life was made by the
doct,r and not BY the druggist; that he
sisnderous remarks made to Mrs Kellhsr
by Dr.. C0rkrsn had passed around he
HClK Auu INrAllcA ~ n AhAAluk Oh
Of from 60 to 70 psr cent OF his business
Mr. CamSron, the prosecuting witness,
was called. He gave some faces concern
ing his early career In the drug business.
The court ruled out OF evidence his
certificate from the State Board of Phar
macy authorizing him to do business in
this state
Mr. Cameron then identified the
prescription and said that it was properly
compounded. subsequently he took the
prescription 70 another druggist, one OF
the best in the city, had It compounded.
compared the two compounds aud found
them identical
The prescription was offered in evidence
aud admitted.
81 called upon De- Corkran aud asked
him what was wrong with the medicine
compounded st my store. said Mr. Gam
eron Hs said, 4 DONE know; why2
| said, You told this family over here
that the medicine was improperly
compounded he said that he had
not said anything said. You
surely have. Il comes TO my ears every
Gay that ] made a mistake In the pre-
seription sent 10 my store He finally
said that It was improperly compounded,
as 10 should no. have the nauseous
! TASTE i told nim thAt ne could DOT get
il out With quinine in such a compound.
1 then obtained half Of the compound
from him and left.
Mr Ward. at this juncture, moved
that all witnesses be excluded fIon the
court room. Mr. Hllles objected on the
ground that the application was made too
late he was sustained by the court and
Mr. Ward asked that an exception be
noted
Mr.. Copper Were you or not, at the
time this prescription was compounded, q
registered pharmacist OF this stste5'
Mr.. Ward objected again After
lengthy argument q majority Of the
court ruled that the question WAS q
proper one and witness answered in the
; Affirmative.
Mr., Ward again requested notation Of
; an exception. and the direct examination
WAS concluded and cross-exanination
/ begun.
Mr.. Ward--"What was the chemical
quality OF the substance used in this
prescription so far as they have ar
alkaline or acid reactiou2'
Mr.. Cameron-'l don't know"