800 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



The Iloiiile Specialty Company sold and delivered to the Merchants 

 Grocery Coninaiiy at rhiladelphia a quantity of adulterated and mis- 

 branded vanilla extract and at the time of sale o:ave to the Merchants 

 Grocery Company a sifj^ied gmxranty to the effect that the extract 

 was neither adulterated nor misbranded within the meaning of the 

 food and drugs act of June 30, 1906. The Merchants Grocery Com- 

 pany sliippod this extract in interstate commerce. Samples were 

 obtained and examined, and after it was found that the extract was 

 adulterated and misbranded a criminal information was fded against 

 the Heinle Specialty Company alleging that the defendant at the time 

 of making sale and delivery of this product knew tliat the extract 

 was likely to be sold in interstate trallic and that the interstate ship- 

 ment thereof was unlawfully made, and that by reason of the guaranty 

 given said defendant was amenable to the prosecutions, fines, and 

 other penalties wliicli attached because of the unla^\'ful sliipment. 

 The defendant tiled a demurrer to the information, and the court 

 after hearing arginnent rendered an opinion overriding the demurrer 

 and sustaining the validity of the guaranty section of the act. 



The guaranty section of tlie act was also drawn in question in United 

 States V. Maj^feld et al. (177 Fed., 705; Notice of Judgment Xo. 326). 

 In this case the Birmingham Celery Cola Company shipped in inter- 

 state commerce a food product labeled "Celery Cola." Examina- 

 tion of samples showed the product to be adulterated because it con- 

 tained cocaine, cocaine derivatives, and caffeine, held to be deleterious 

 and poisonous ingredients. The product was also misbranded 

 because the quantity or proportion of cocaine present was not declared 

 on the label. Criminal information was filed against the ofiicers of 

 the corporation and a jury trial was had. The defendants denied 

 responsibility for the shipment, and further relied, as a matter of 

 defense, on a guaranty given by the makers of the extract from 

 which the Celery Cola was manufactured that the extract was not 

 adulterated or misbranded under the food and drugs act. The court, 

 in charging the jury, said that the guaranty provided by section 9 

 of the act is available to a dealer only when such guaranty relates to 

 the identical article shipped by him and affords no defense to him 

 when the guaranty relates only to a constituent used by him in man- 

 ufacturing the article shipped; and further, that the officers of a cor- 

 poration which manufactured an adulterated or misbranded food 

 product shipped by its manager in interstate commerce are subject 

 to prosecution therefor when they authorized the manager to operate 

 the plant and sell the product without restriction, and the previous 

 course had been to ship on orders to other States. The jury returned 

 a verdict of guilty as to two officers of the corporation and fines were 

 imposed on each. 



A decision adverse to the contentions of the Government was ren- 

 dered in United States v. Sixty-eight Cases of Sirup (172 Fed., 781; 

 Notice of Judgment No. 283). In that case libel was filed against 

 68 cases of sirup labeled (on cases) "Western Reserve Ohio blended 

 maple syrup guaranteed absolutely pure, shipped by Western Reserve 

 Syrup Co., Cleveland, Ohio;" (on bottles) "Western Reserve Ohio 

 blended syrup, Western Reserve Company, Cleveland, Ohio, blenders 

 of fancy maple syrup and maple sugar," and misbranding was alleged 

 lor the reason that the labeling was misleading and deceptive because 



