the ground, that defendant being a remote vendor and there being no privity or connection between him and the plaintiff, the action could not be sustained. The Court said, “Gilbert, the defendant’s agent, would have been punishable for manslaughter if Mrs. Thomas had died in consequence of taking the falsely labelled medicine. Every one who by his culpable negligence causes the death of another, although without intent to kill, is guilty of manslaughter [474]. This rule applies not only where the death of one is occasioned by the neglectful act of another, but where it is caused by the neglectful omission of a duty by that other [475]. Although the defendant W. may not be answerable criminally for the neglect |181| of his agent, there can be no doubt as to his liability in a civil action, in which the action of the agent is to be regarded as the act of the principal. The defendant’s neglect put human life in imminent danger. Can it be said that there was no duty on the part of the defendant to avoid the creation of that danger by the exercise of greater caution? Or that the exercise of that caution was a duty only to his immediate vendee, whose life was not endangered? (He being a dealer and not a customer.) The defendant’s duty arose out of the nature of his business, and the danger to others incident to its mismanagement. Nothing but mischief like that which actually happened could have been expected from sending the poison falsely labelled into the market, and the defendant is justly responsible for the probable consequences of the act. The duty of exercising caution in this respect did not arise out of the defendant’s contract of sale to Aspinwall. The wrong done by the defendant was in putting the poison unlabelled into the hands of Aspinwall as an article of merchandise to be sold, and afterwards used, as the extract of dandelion by some person then unknown. The defendant’s contract of sale to Aspinwall does not excuse the wrong done the plaintiffs. It was part of the means by which the wrong was effected. The plaintiffs’ injury and their remedy would have stood on the same principle if the defendant had given the belladonna to Dr. Foord without price, or if he had put it in his shop without his knowledge under circumstances that would have led to its sale on the faith of the labels.”