414 ANNUAL EEPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



tion of the defendant company to strike the information from the 

 docket, because not filed by leave of court first had, the court, in 

 denying said motion, held that there is no statute on the subject and 

 that the question becomes one of practice rather than one of right, 

 and, as a matter of practice, in accordance with the views expressed 

 ]n Weeks v. United States, no leave of court is necessary before the 

 information is filed in such a case as this; that if no constitutional 

 right of the defendant is affected by an information filed by the 

 district attorney, not supported by affidavit showing probable cause, 

 except in cases in which a w'arrant for arrest is sought, the defend- 

 ant can not have a constitutional right to require the district attorney 

 to obtain leave of court before filing an information when no war- 

 rant of arrest is sought. 



The case of United States v. A. Skarzynski (Notice of Judgment 

 No. 6125), involved the shipment in interstate commerce of a so- 

 called Wine of Chenstohow, which was labeled, in part (on wrapper), 

 "Medicinal compound the best remedy for the stomach," (on bottle) 

 " Those who suffer from loss of strength, indigestion, piles, pains, etc., 

 should use the curative Wine of Chenstohow." 



In the charge to the jury the court stated that the food and drugs 

 act was passed by Congress for the purpose of prohibiting the sale of 

 impure foods and drugs and forbidding the misbranding of the same ; 

 that the object was to prevent the sale of commodities in interstate 

 commerce that are harmful to the health of the people and to prevent 

 them from being defrauded by adulterated foods, drugs, and liquids, 

 also to prevent the misbranding or false labeling of such articles, so 

 that the buyer should know that the article bought by him was what 

 it purported to be; further, that the purpose of this suit is to safe- 

 guard the unwary public from being deceived, and from buying such 

 commodity which would not of itself give the benefit promised by the 

 seller and as indicated by the labels and wrappers; and that violators 

 of this statute can not be permitted to defraud the public by placing 

 upon the market spurious foods or drugs or beverages or placing upon 

 the market foods or beverages and mislabeling them, to the end that 

 the buying public may be led to believe that the contents of the 

 package, if the drug or beverage is contained in packages, contains 

 something different than they intended to purchase. 



The jury was instructed, that, if the words contained in the above- 

 quoted labeling are to be taken in the broad sense, the product in 

 question is misbranded on account of their evident falsity; if the 

 meaning is restricted, as the defendant claims, to conditions of the 

 stomach as distinguished from organic troubles, and such condition 

 is benefited or cured by the product, then the defendant company is 

 not guilty. In other words, the jury should consider and determine 

 the meaning of those words and whether the defendant company 

 meant by the wording on the label that the public should understand 

 that the product would remedy or cure all stomach troubles, in the 

 broad sense, which would include organic troubles of the stomadi, or 

 did it simply mean to be understood, and want the public to under- 

 stand by the label and wrapper, that the reference was to temporary 

 or symptomatic conditions of the stomach, such as do not arise from a 

 diseased condition or an organic condition of the stomach. 



