896 ANNUAL REPORTS OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



are necessary to prevent decomposition then the product is as an 

 article of food so close to the danger line as to excite suspicion and 

 demand the closest judicial scrutiny ])ofore it is allowed to become 

 an article of food consumption, and that the condition of the product 

 in the hands of the consumer is a place and tune to test its fitness for 

 food. 



Claimant is seeking to have this decision reversed by the Supreme 

 Court of the United States. 



The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has construed the 

 word "Compound," as used in section 8 of the act, in Honning & Co. 

 V. United States (198 Fed. Rep., 52; Notice of Judgment No. 1529). 

 The opinion was rendered on appeal by the company from the decree 

 of the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, condemning 

 and forfeiting the product in a seizure proceeding under section 10 of 

 the act, against 14 barrels of so-called compound catsup, alleged to be 

 adulterated and misbranded because it contained pumpkin seed, 

 which ingredient was not stated. It was contended by appellants 

 that the word ' 'compound" on said label brought the product within 

 the proviso of section 8, paragraph 4, providing that an article which 

 was plainly labeled so as to indicate that it was a compound should 

 not be deemed to be adulterated or misbranded when it contained no 

 poisonous or deleterious ingredient. This department, however, has 

 always insisted upon the view that a compound article of food, to be 

 properly labeled within the purview of the paragraph in question, 

 must be labeled so as to show two or more of the ingredients entering 

 into said compound. The circuit court of appeals in the foregoing 

 opinion sustained the view held by this department. In Hudson 

 Manufacturmg Co. v. The United States (192 Fed. Rep., 920; Notice 

 of Judgment No. 1451) this same court affirmed a decree of condem- 

 nation and forfeiture of a product labeled "Hudson's Extract * * *." 

 The court held — 



That where there is no proof that the words "Hudson's Extract" have a well-known 

 trade meaning, an imitation vanilla marked "Hudson's Extract," without giving any 

 indication of what the article is composed, shows a clear case of misbranding under the 

 pure-food law. 



The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has also construed 

 the word "compound" m the act, in the case of Frank et al. v. The 

 United States (192 Fed. Rep., 864), sustaining a conviction of the 

 defendant, upon an information charging interstate shipment of a 



{)roduct labeled "Compound White Pepper," in prominent type, and 

 ess conspicuously on another part of the label naming the ingredients 

 of said compound. Misbrandmg was alleged by reason of the failure 

 to properly qualify the words "Compound White Pepper" by a 

 conspicuous statement of the ingredients. (See Notice of Judgment 

 No. 835.) The appellate court held against the contention of appel- 

 lants that the term "compound" as used on the label necessarily 

 implied that the article was composed of pepper and other ingredients. 



The court also decided in this case that a violation of section 2 of the 

 food and drugs act was a petty offense as distinguished from a crime, 

 requiring the trial by jury under section 2 of article 3 of the Constitu- 

 tion. 



During the period covered by this report the first jail sentence was 

 imposed for a violation of the food and drugs act in the case of United 

 States V. Alberto MHanesi, trading as the Lucca Wine Importing Co. 



