The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-12-20

material essence of the action negligence of the
defendant in filling the prescription presented which negligence
caused injury the plaintiff 1t inaeral whether that
negligence consisted in adding the mixture deleteriou sub
different in kind from any of those named in the pre-
scrpon in adding the in kind of
those named but the quantity prescribed such
substance being harmless quantity ordered but harmful
in the quantity furnished The latter OF
detail The variance such could have mised the
defendant to It's prejudice
Another exception the ruling of the trial per
uniting the witness Shorey give his opinion the effect
of applications of bchoride mercury the face. We think
that the testimony properly admitted The witness before
giving his opinion expert testified that he chemist
educated the Queens University, Ontario, Canada that he
held the degree of Doctor that he and
years last past had been employed chemist by the local Board
Of Health and that he had pracced chemistry for
years chemist is "a person versed in chemistry and chem
y 'the science of the composition of material things and
changes which they undergo consequence of changes
their ultimate composition Gent Dict. "a chemist
whose Legitimate profession inquire into the and
properties of matter and of combination union between the
elements of which different substances compoed.12 Am
Eng Encvc Law, 2nd edition, 433 The opinions given by
the upon questions requiring that special kno
edge and skill which he possessed Ha,tmg
The People, Parker CT. r., 319 327; Am. & Eng.
Encyc. Law, 2nd edition, 434.
The remaining exception relied upon the verdict the
ground that it is contrary law and evidence The
contention that the verdict be upheld of the
that the instructed the jury ALA follows
IF you find from the evidence that upon all prior
October 1892 the plaintiff used lotion containing four
grains of bchlorde of mercury the without any injury
resulting hererom, then, you find from the evidence that
grains of bchlorde of mercury the
did the strength of the lotion burn
ing berng and swelling your verdict must be for the de
PENDANT and against the plaintiff Under this instruction
jury determine whether the in
crease grains the the injury
plaintiffs and although the evidence of the experts
if taken by itself, would have perhaps required finding for
the defendant this point, there other evidence tow
that plaintiff and her mother tending show that the
of bchordc OF mercury did the injury In
opinion the evidence sufficient support the verdict.
The exceptions overruIed
Robertson d Wilder for plaintiff.
lndrc,cs. Peters d Andradc for defendant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF
HAWAII
OCTOBER TERN, 1901.
JAMES +. MORGAN l. MRS F. c. BETTERS.
EXCEPTIONS FROM CIRCUIT Corrr, FIRST CIRCUIT.
SUBMITTED NOVEMBER - DECIDED NOVEMBER %, 1901
FREAR, CD, GALBRArrH PERRY, j.
stipulated
designate the property sold the
paid Independent of the statute of frauds
Immediately right the price the
seller such the intention of
OPINION OF THE COURT BY GALBRAITH, J.
The plaintiff, licensed auctioneer, conducted sale
private residence in Honolulu which the defendant attended
and bid articles of personal property that knocked
down her The aggregate value of the articles 1928
he defendant did pay for the property it from
the house and, after the sale the plaintiff removed the
his aesroom and notified the defendant that the there
subject her order and demanded payment the