594 ANNUAL KEPOrvTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



the jury might think, its origin, were correct; that if the defendant 

 put it out and traded in it, even though he did not know it, he must 

 know it; that it is not a question of a man's motive; that the food 

 and drugs act is for the purpose of protecting the people and seeing 

 that the public gets fair statements as to weights, origins, and the 

 like; that the act should be administered, both by the courts and 

 juries, in a rational and sensible way. 



In the case of United States v. John Jacobson (F. & D. 10113, 

 N. J. 7735), involving the shipment of alleged condensed milk, the 

 court charged the jury that if they found upon the testimony that the 

 butter fat of the milk had been removed and that other ])utter fat 

 had been substituted in sufficient amount to meet the minimum re- 

 quirement as to butter fat in condensed milk bat in a lesser amount 

 than the amount which was removed, that such treatment consti- 

 tuted adulteration for the reason that a valuable constituent of the 

 product had been abstracted, and that it would be the duty of the 

 jury to find the defendant guilty. It was further charged that if a 

 part of the butter fat had been removed from the product which 

 was labeled " Kegular Condensed Milk " and the milk had not been 

 made from the whole milk it was misbranded within the meaning of 

 the act. 



In the case of the United States v. Kar-Ru Chemical Co. (264 

 Fed., 921) the judgment of conviction of trial court was affirmed in 

 the Circuit Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit. The claim of the 

 defendant was that the case involved a controversy relating to the 

 efficacy of the homeopathic remedies and that the theories of the 

 pi'osecution arose on the testimony of its medical witnesses that home- 

 opathic remedies were v/orthless. The court stated that the " defend- 

 ant having defended on the ground that the preparations were 

 remedies in accordance with the theory and practice of homeopathy, 

 that question became a question of fact for the jury to be determined 

 under proper instruction from the court," and that the instructions 

 by the trial court were in accordance with the law as declared hy 

 the Supreme Court in the case of seven cases of Eckman's Altera- 

 tives V. United States (239 U. S., 510). 



In the case of the United States v. One Gross Packages of " Texas 

 Wonder" (F. & D. 9322). the court instructed the jury that the 

 statement on the carton "A Texas Wonder, Hall's Great Discovery 

 * * * for kidney and bladder troubles, diabetes, weak and lame 

 backs, rheumatism," was not a statement that the article was a 

 specific for the cure of those diseases, but was a statement that it 

 was recommended that it would have a therapeutic or curative effect 

 in the treatment of those diseases, and that the statement that the 

 article dissolves gravel was a statement of fact, and affirmative asser- 

 tion of the originator of the compound that it would have the effect, 

 if taken according to directions, of dissolving gravel in the bladder, 

 and also that it was a statement of fact that the article would have 

 the effect of regulating bladder trouble in children. The court 

 further instructed the jury that if it should find that the labeling 

 constituted a false statement, in passing on the question of whether 

 it was fraudulent, they might take into consideration the chemical 

 contents of the concoction as proven and whether a man without 

 chemical knowledge or without experience, as the manufacturer ad- 

 mitted he was, could medicinally understand the effects of such drugs 



