592 



ANNUAL RKPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



account of nonappearance. Kino was imposed in one criminal case 

 after the trial and conviction of the defendant. In the seizure pro- 

 ceeding a decree of condemnation was entered and the product was 

 released on bond. 'The fines or amounts forfeited as collateral in 

 criminal cases were as follows : 



F^ines in food and drug cases begun by United States attorneys. 



Six hundred notices of judgment were published during the 3^ear 

 and 1,330 were prepared for publication. Briefs were prepared in 

 five cases at the requests of United States attorneys. 



FOOD AND DRUGS CASES OF INTEREST. 



In the case of Bradley v. U. S. (264 Fed. Rep. 79), which was 

 the outgrowth of a seizure proceeding based on Food and Drugs 

 No. 8752, N. J. No. 6623, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the 

 Fifth Circuit, in affirming the decree of the lower court, held that 

 in a suit to condemn mineral water shipped in interstate commerce 

 under a label stating that it was recommended in the treatment of 

 certain diseases, whether this was a representation that the water 

 had curative or therapeutic qualities was a question for the court, 

 but the falsity or truth of such representation and the intent of the 

 claimant Avere questions for the jury to find from the testimony 

 before it. 



The court further held that the words " recommended in the treat- 

 ment of Bright's disease," etc. " Directions * * * " could only 

 mean that the use of the water in the treatment of the diseases named 

 would effect a cure or alleviation of such diseases; otherwise why 

 recommend it? Unless this means that the water did contain ele- 

 ments or ingredients which would allcAdate or cure the diseases 

 named, when taken according to the directions thereon contained, it 

 was a waste of printer's ink. 



It was further held that where a claimant shipped water in inter- 

 state commerce under a label representing that it possessed curative 

 or alleviative qualities, he could not deny that it was a drug within 

 the meaning of the food and drugs act, section 8, subdivision 3, as 

 to the misbranding of drugs; that to confine the meaning of the word 

 " drugs," as used in said subdivision of section 8, to any definition of 

 "drug" found in dictionaries or pharmacopoeias would, in the judg- 

 ment of the court, be entirely too narrow. 



The court further held that if the allegations of the libel were true 

 the claimant has put the substance, water, in interstate commerce 

 with the recommendation that it possessed certain elements or in- 

 gredients which were curative or at least alleviative for the diseases 

 named in the label and that he would not be heard then to say that 



