OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR. 485 



that on this well-known trail of liuniaii nature tbese compoi;nders of specifics 

 and nostrums build their business, deprives this claim of any weighty signifi- 

 cance, because it will not do for a person who has been able to prey upon the 

 credulity of a community to escape the consequences of his acts by the very 

 success of his scheme. * * * 



It would be sufficient, in my judgment, to sustain the libel, for nfe to hold 

 that the defendant did not know that his statements were false, but merely 

 made them recklessly and without due regard for that fact. But I think 

 the evidence establishes more, and leaves no doubt that the defendant is 

 seeking, by a broad and comprehensive claim for Ids medicine, to increase its 

 sales, with an absolute knowledge on his part of the falsity of his advertise- 

 ments, certainly as to a part of the matters clainfed for it. 



* * * rpiie danger and innn"y to the public from this character of 

 advertisements is, however, considerable in that it induces persons to rely 

 in serious cases upon a preparation without healing virtue when except for 

 this reliance they would no doubt secure proper advice and treatment for 

 the ills which affect them. 



Ill the case of the United States v. 275 cases mineral water (F. & 

 D., Xo. 8752), instituted in the Western District of Louisiana and 

 involving tlie shipment in interstate commerce of certain mineral 

 Avater for Avhieh various medicinal and therapeutic effects were 

 claimed on the labels, the court instructed the jury as follows: 



If you find that the water was not of value for the purposes recommended, 

 but that defendant acted in good faith, then there should be a verdict in his 

 favor, but if you find that the water was not of value for the purposes recom- 

 mended, to the knowledge of the defendant, and that his purpose was to deceive 

 and impose upon the public, then you should return a verdict for the Govern- 

 ment. 



* 1(1 * * * * * 



The pure food and drugs act is one of the best laws of its character placed 

 on the statute books in many years. It simply means that a man shall cor- 

 }-ect!y brand or label that which he ships in interstate commerce, that the pur- 

 cb.aser must be informed of the character of the article bought, and nnist not 

 be deceived as to its curative properties; in other words, that the drug must 

 not be sold under false representations. 



In the case of the United States v. Italian Importing Co. (F. & D. 

 9431). instituted in the Southern District of Xew York and involving 

 a violation of the net weight amendment and the rules and regula- 

 tions thereunder in short-filling cans with olive oil, the court in- 

 structed the jury as follows: 



Now, those rules and regulations pernut a certain variation, but of course it 

 does not permit willful conduct or intentional or willful underweighing or uu- 

 dermeasuring of the contents ; that is, placing and undermeasuring in the tin 

 can or the package and then misbranding it and saying it is more than in 

 truth and in fact it Is, but inadvertence may be of importance in this regard 

 only: If it is done in good faith, without intent to do wrong, without willful 

 design to do wrong in the usual course of its business, in ignorance or in inad- 

 vertence filling these cans, and at underweight or undermeasureraent, then you 

 can see they would not be guilty, because no man imder our law cau commit a 

 crime through a mistake. The commission of a crime depends upon a criminal 

 intent. Of course, it is true that the law is that a man is presumed to intend 

 the natural and flowing conseciuences of his act. 



In the case of the United States v. Kar-Ru Chemical Co. (F, & D. 

 8315), instituted in the Western District of Washington and involv- 

 ing a violation of the Sherley amendment to the food and drugs act, 

 the court instructed the jury that — 



it would not be necessary to prove that the entire label, that all of the repre- 

 sentations on the label regarding the curative and therapeutic effect of the con- 

 tents were false and fraudulent. 



