No. 6. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 91 



The defendiant's export testified tliat salicylic acid would not be 

 classed in tllie group of poisons; (bat wbellier oi' not it is poisonous 

 or injurious depends ui)on tbe amount taken and bow it is used, 

 wbicli pjiplies to arsenic or any otber poisons; tbat if tbe acid was 

 taken in a harmful amount, it would alTect injuriously tbe digestion, 

 the kidneys and <be heart; that all poisons must be administered 

 medicinally and tbat witness had known of salicylic acid being ad- 

 n\inistered beneficially in medicinal doses; that tbe acid is a sub- 

 stance foreign to i-aspberry syrup. 



The trial court submitted the case to lilie jury and charged that 

 the only question to be determined by them was whether or not 

 salicylic acid was poisonous or injurious to health; tbat if it wa«s 

 it was the duty of the jury to convict. A verdict of "guilty" was re- 

 turned by the jury, and the defendant, having been sentenced, ap- 

 pealed to tbe Supreme Court, which, by a divided court, affirmed the 

 judgment of the trial court. He thereupon appealed to this court. 



The determination of the several assignments of error involves a 

 consideration of clause seven of section tlii'ee of the act of June 26, 

 1895, under which the indictment w\as found. Tbe learned trial 

 judge held that the clause prohibited the addition to a food product 

 of any foreign (.substance poisonous or injurious to health, regardless 

 of the quantity used or whether or not tibe quantity of the substance 

 used was sufficient to make the adulterated article poisonous or in- 

 jurious to health. In other words, it is not tbe quantity but tbe 

 nature of the substance added which the act prohibits. 



The court held that if the foreign substance added to an article of 

 food is poisonous or injurious in any quantity, the statute declares 

 it to be an adulteration. Tihe case was tried upon this construction 

 of the act, and the rulings of the trial court, assigned for error in 

 the Superior Court and on tliis appeal, are based upon tliat interpre- 

 tation of the statute. 



The learned counsel for the defendant contend that the act is not 

 violated unless the quantity of the foreign substance is sufficient to 

 make the compound poisonous or injurious to health. They state 

 their position in their fourtfli point for charge, which is as follows: 

 ''The defendant in this case is indicted for selling one bottle of 

 syrup, and if the jury should find from tbe evidence tbat the single 

 bottle actually S'Old did not contain salicylic acid in sufficient quan- 

 tities to be poisonous or injurious to health, then your verdict must 

 be for the defendant." 



We are not prepared to adopt this construction of the clause of the 

 section under consideration. The purpose of the statute was to 

 prevent the adulteration of food; tihe term "food" including all arti- 

 clees used for food or drink by man. 



