802 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



In United States v. Sixty-five Casks of Liquid Extract, supra, the 

 claimants contended that the quantity or proportion of the drugs speci- 

 fied in section 8 of the act need not oe declared in the case of drugs 

 which are not labeled or branded. The court ruled adversely to this 

 contention, deciding, in effect, that the act not only requires that 

 drugs shi{)pcd in interstate commerce and labeled shall not be mis- 

 branded, but requires that they. shall bear labels conforming to its 

 provisions. 



Decisions were rendered by the circuit courts of appeals in the 

 following cases: 



GuiDO Brina v. United States (Notice of Judgment No. 473; 179 Fed., 373). 



Brina was tried, convicted, and fined on the charge of shipping in interstate com- 

 merce a quantity of oil labeled "Olio per insalata sopraffino vival brand cotton salad 

 oil extra qualita," which was misbranded because the statements on the label tended 

 to deceive and mislead purchasers into believing that the oil was a superfine oil 

 manufactured in Italy, when, in fact, the oil was not olive oil and was not manufac- 

 tured in Italy. The defendant assigned as error the charge of the trial judge that "as 

 a notorious fact salad oil prima facie means olive oil." The court held that the charge 

 was proper, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 



French Silver Dragee Company v. United States (Notice of Judgment, No. 



543: 179 Fed., 824). 



This case grew out of the interstate shipment of so-called silver dragees, a confection 

 which was found by the court below to be adulterated by reason of the presence 

 therein of a mineral matter, to wit, metallic silver. No evidence was offered tending 

 to show that metallic silver is poisonous, or deleterious or detrimental to health, and 

 the decision of the trial court was based upon the interpretation of the statute that all 

 the Government need establish was that the confectionery contained a mineral sub- 

 stance. The judgment was reversed, and the court ruled that confectionery is adul- 

 terated within section 7 of the act if it contains any mineral substance used for the 

 purposes of deception, or if it contain any poisonous mineral substance, or poisonous 

 color or flavor, or if it contain any ingredient whatsoever which is deleterious or detri- 

 mental to health; in other words, to prove adulteration of confectionery containing a 

 metallic substance it is held that the burden is on the Government to prove that the 

 use of the substance operates to deceive purchasers or that the substance is injurious 

 to health. 



United States v. Knowlton Danderine Co., Claimants (Notice of Judgment, 

 No. 284); U. S. v. Sixty-Five Casks op Liquid Extracts (170 Fed., 449); Same 

 (175 Fed., 1022). 



Seizure was effected of a quantity of "Danderine," a drug product, on the charge 

 of misbranding for the reason that the casks containing it failed to bear a statement 

 of the quantity or proportion of alcohol therein. The claimants set up several dis- 

 tinct matters of defense, all of which were determined in favor of the United States, 

 with the exception of the allegation that the consignment was not subject to seizure 

 because it had not been transported from one State to another for sale. It was admitted 

 in the agreed statement of facts on which the case was tried that the product was 

 shipped for the distinct purpose of being bottled and labeled, and that when ready for 

 sale the salable package bore a statement showing the content of alcohol. Further- 

 more, the record disclosed that the claimant shipped the said casks as its own product, 

 made by its own agent in Michigan, to its own warehouse in West Virginia. The 

 judgment of the district court in favor of the claimant was affirmed on the ground that 

 there was no evidence of any attempt to evade the law either directly or indirectly. 

 The Attorney-General held that this decision was not reviewable by the Supreme 

 Court by certiorari or otherwise. 



The jurisdictional question involved is presented, however, in United States v. 

 Fifty Cases of Preserved Whole Egg, infra, now before the Supreme Court, in which 

 the decision of the trial court was directly opposite to the decision in this case. 



