702 



ANNTJALi REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



were pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, or the collateral desposited 

 by defendants was forfeited on account of nonappearance. In one 

 of the seizure cases a default decree was entered and in the other a 

 consent decree was entered and the product taken down under bond. 



Fines in food and drug cases beguniy United States attorneys on reports of State authorities. 



One thousand and fifty notices of judgment were prepared and 

 published during the year. 



COURT DECISION'S OF INTEREST. 



The case of A. O. Anderson & Co. v. United States (284 Fed. Rep. 

 542) was the outgrowth of a seizure proceeding against a shipment of 

 canned salmon, the lower court having directed a verdict for the 

 claimant on the ground that the ''article" of the statute referred to 

 the individual cans and not to the product or shipment as a whole, 

 and that to condemn the entire shipment each can must be found to 

 be adulterated. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 

 in reversing the lower court, held that in the provisions of the food 

 and drugs act covering the seizure and condemnation of "any article 

 of food" which is adulterated or misbranded, the word ''article" is 

 used in a broad and comprehensive sense, and as applied to a ship- 

 ment of a food product in containers, such as canned salmon, it has 

 reference to the shipment as a whole, and therefore to authorize con- 

 demnation of the product under the act it is not necessary for the 

 Government to prove that each individual can is adulterated. The 

 court also held that in proceedings under the act for condemnation 

 of adulterated food, proof that the food product was injurious to 

 health was not required, and that the act was not invalid because it 

 failed definitely to specify the extent to which decomposition must 

 have progressed to bring the article within the prohibition. 



The case of Duffy-Mott Company v. United States (285 Fed. Rep. 

 737) was based on a seizure proceeding instituted against a shipment 

 of artificially carbonated apple juice flavored with capsicum and 

 labeled "Sparkling White Seal." The libel alleged that the product 

 was adulterated and misbranded. At the trial in the lower court the 

 Government abandoned the adulteration charge and stood on the 

 single misbranded charge that the package containing the article and 

 its label bearing the statement "Sparkling White Seal," together with 

 the general design and appearance of the bottled product, were mis- 

 leading to the purchaser in that it simulated "White Seal Cham- 

 pagne." The court instructed the jury that a bottler of a beverage 

 has the right, as far as the food and drugs act is concerned, to use any 

 name on his product that suits his fancy, unless the name on the label 



