Alberty v. United States
Decision Date | 31 January 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 11338.,11338. |
Citation | 159 F.2d 278 |
Parties | ALBERTY v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Hauerken, Ames & St. Clair and George H. Hauerken, all of San Francisco, Cal., O'Connor & O'Connor and William V. O'Connor, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
James M. Carter, U.S. Atty., Ernest A. Tolin and Walter S. Binns, all of Los Angeles, Cal., and Tobias G. Klinger, of Washington, D. C., Asst. U. S. Attys., and William Strong, Sp. Asst. to the U. S. Atty., of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, DENMAN and ORR, Circuit Judges.
Appellant appeals from a judgment sentencing her to three years on probation for violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 331(a), 21 U. S.C.A. § 331(a).
Appellant demurred to the information on the ground that it does not charge an offense within the sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, contending to the court below, as follows: * * *."
and that the labels did not accompany the drug within Section 321(m).
The district court overruled the demurrer, thus ruling against appellant's contention that the literature did not accompany the drug when it was introduced into interstate commerce. Appellant assigns this ruling as error.
It will be noted that the verb "is" is in the present tense. Section 331(a) confines the offense to a misbranding at the "introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce" as recognized in the information by the use of the words "then and there."
A drug is misbranded "If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular." 21 U.S.C. § 352(a), 21 U.S.C.A. § 352(a). "Labeling" of an article is defined to mean "all labels * * * accompanying such article." 21 U.S.C. § 321(m), 21 U. S.C.A. § 321(m).
The information charges that the false labels were shipped by appellant to the Natural Food Store at Kansas City, Missouri, on February 7, 1944, that is, two months and 11 days before April 18, 1944, when the drug was "then and there" introduced into interstate commerce. It does not allege that the labels were to be placed with the drug or used together with it by the consignee. For all the information alleges, the labels may not have arrived in Missouri. Or they may have been destroyed. Or they may have been distributed to the prospective customers a month before the arrival of the drug in Missouri and hence never accompanied it there. Or they may have been used in connection with other drugs shipped and sold long prior to April 18, 1944, when the charged offense is alleged "then and there" to have been committed.
We do not think that the bald statement that the labels were shipped to the Missouri consignee 71 days before the drug was shipped charges the offense of causing them to be "accompanying" the drug's introduction into interstate commerce on or about April 18, 1944.
Appellee cites our decision United States v. Research Laboratories, Inc., 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 42. In that case, a condemnation proceeding, the libel charged that the false circulars accompanied the drug into...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Vitamin Industries Inc.
...approach to construction may be given effect in appraising the present defendants' argument, fortified by the citation of Alberty v. United States, 9 Cir., 159 F.2d 278, for a more strict construction here of the cited sections of Title 21 U.S. C.A. than would be allowable if the action wer......
-
United States v. Kordel
...doubt of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Appellant strongly relies upon Alberty v. United States, 9 Cir., 159 F.2d 278, to sustain his proposition that booklets and the like, not shipped at the time of the articles, do not "accompany" the art......
-
United States v. Alberty Food Products
...drug and hence will likely reach the hands of the consumer to serve the purposes for which labeling is intended. Cf. Alberty v. United States, 9 Cir., 1947, 159 F.2d 278; also Alberty Food Products v. United States, supra, 185 F.2d at page It follows that in the case at bar the literature m......
-
Urbeteit v. United States, 12033.
...consignee and received at the same time for use in connection with the article, "accompanied" it. But the same court in Alberty v. United States, 9 Cir., 159 F.2d 278, refused so to hold when the printed matter and the article were shipped 2 months apart and not simultaneously. Accepting th......
-
§2.4 Technology, Market Segmentation, and Food Law: 1938-1958
...by mouth." [253] U.S. v. Lee, 131 F. at 466 (1942); see also, U.S. v. Diapulse Manufacturing Corporation, 269 F. Supp. 162 (1967).[254] 159 F.2d 278 (1947).[255] This case was distinguished from U.S. v. Lee because of the criminal charge brought against appellant; see also, U.S. v. 250 Jars......
-
Table of Cases
...(CD California 2021), §12.3.2 A.E. Staley Mfg. Co. v. Secretary of Agriculture et al., 120 F.2d 258 (1941), §2.4 Alberty v. United States 159 F.2d 278 (1947), §2.4 American Health Products Co., Inc. v. Hayes, 574 F. Supp. 1498 (1983), §2.5 American Ins. Co. v. 365 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 5......