OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOB. 411 



' compound,' ' imitation,' or ' blend,' as the case may be, is plainly 

 stated on the package in Vv^hich it is offered for sale." 



With regard to the labeling the Supreme Court said that its 

 obvious and undisputed purpose and effect was to declare the bottled 

 article a compound essence of grape when in fact it contained noth- 

 ing from grapes and was a mere imitation, and should therefore 

 be deemed adulterated since some other substance had been substituted 

 wholly for the one indicated by the label, and also misbrandecl, for the 

 label carried a false and misleading statement. 



With regard to the contention of the defendant the court said, 

 " But we are unable to conclude that by simply using ' compound ' 

 upon his label a dishonest manufacturer exempts his wares from all 

 inhibitions of the statute and obtains full license to befool the public. 

 Such a construction would defeat the highly beneficent end which 

 Congress had in view." The court further said, " The stuff put into 

 commerce by defendant was an ' imitation,' and if so labeled pur- 

 chasers would have had some notice. To call it ' compound essence 

 of grapes ' certainly did not suggest a mere imitation, but on the 

 contrary falsely indicated that it contained something derived from 

 grapes. (See Frank v. United States^ 192 Fed., 864.) The statute 

 enjoins truth; that label exhales deceit." 



In United States v. 720 eases of tomato catsup (Notice of Judg- 

 ment 6192), in which the article was alleged to be adulterated, the 

 court charged the jury that in reaching a conclusion as to whether or 

 not the law was violated they should accept in the common ordinary 

 everyday sense the words " filthy," " decomposed," and " putrid " — 

 that is to say, filthy is usually considered to be nasty or dirty, decom- 

 posed is usually considered to be rotten, and putrid has a somewhat 

 similar meaning in everyday life, rotten or emitting a vile odor; 

 " just the meaning that you gentlemen would give to these words in 

 your daily lives." 



It was further charged, if the article consists in whole or in part 

 of a filthy or decomposed vegetable substance, that it was unnecessary 

 for it to be unfit for food, to constitute a violation of the food and 

 drugs act. 



In United States v. Direct Sales Co. (Notice of Judgment 6193), 

 in which the defendant entered a plea of guilty to shipment in in- 

 terstate commerce of seven different articles of drug which were adul- 

 terated and misbranded, the court ruled, upon the question as to the 

 amount of fine to be imposed, that the article is clearly specified in 

 the food and drugs act as the unit of the offense, as distinguished 

 from the shipment and that in this case, involving seven different 

 articles, each adulterated and misbranded, that there were 14 sepa- 

 rate and distinct violations of the act, for which separate penalties 

 might be imposed. 



Upon defendant's contention that separate offenses committed at 

 one and the same time are inspired by one criminal intent and that 

 therefore but one punishment may be imposed, the court held that 

 that rule did not strictly apply, as the food and drugs act specifically 

 designates the articles as the item, the transportation of which is 

 prohibited. The court also held that the misbranding and adultera- 

 tion in this case constituted concurrent offenses in answer to defend- 

 ant's contention that the imposition of a penalty in excess of $200 

 would be the imposition of a penalty for a subsequent offense. 



