Bradley v. United States

• Citation: 264 F. 79
• Decision Date: 18 March 1920
• Docket Number: 3393.
• Parties: BRADLEY v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

264 F. 79

BRADLEY v. UNITED STATES.

No. 3393.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 18, 1920

Frank J. Looney, J. M. Foster, and W. A. Wilkinson, all of Shreveport, La., for appellant.

Joseph Moore, U.S. Atty., of Shreveport, La.

Before WALKER, Circuit Judge, and GRUBB and CALL, District Judges.

CALL District Judge.

Libel was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against 275 cases of mineral water praying for confiscation and condemnation of same for having been shipped in interstate commerce in violation of the Food and Drugs Act (Comp. St. Secs. 8717-8728).

The libel, after alleging the shipment of the cases of mineral water in interstate commerce and the presence of the same within the jurisdiction of the court, alleges that the same were misbranded in the following respects:

'That the following statements regarding the therapeutic or curative effects thereof, appearing on the label aforesaid to wit: 'Robinson Springs Water. Springs at Pocahontas, Miss. Recommended in the treatment of Bright's Disease, Diabetes, Dropsy, Cystitis, Gout, Rheumatism, Indigestion, Kidney and Bladder troubles. Directions: * * * Robinson Springs and Sanitarium Co., Pocahontas, Miss.'-- were false and fraudulent, in that the same were applied to said articles knowingly and in a reckless and wanton disregard of their truth or falsity, so as to represent falsely and fraudulently to the purchaser thereof, and create in the minds of purchasers thereof, the impression and belief that it was in whole or in part composed of or contained ingredients or medical agents, effective, among other things, as a remedy for Bright's disease, diabetes, dropsy, cystitis, gout, rheumatism, indigestion, kidney and bladder troubles, when in truth and in fact said article was not in whole or in part composed of and did not contain ingredients, nor a combination of ingredients, capable of producing the therapeutic effects claimed on the labels, and therefore not effective as a treatment for said above-mentioned ailments.'

C. L. Bradley put in a claim to the water seized by the marshal, and excepted to the libel:

(1) That the label does not disclose that the waters contained in the bottles are misbranded, because the label does not claim that the waters contain any ingredients or substance for the cure of any human ailment.

(2) The label described in the libel does not pretend that the waters contain medical agents effective as a remedy for human disease.

(3) That the labels set out in the libel do not amount in law to a misbranding.

An answer was also filed admitting the shipment in interstate commerce, and the labels as set out in the libel, and were intended for sale as a mineral water recommended to be freely used in the treatment of certain diseases, and that the same were in the jurisdiction of the court, but denies that they were misbranded, or that the brand was false or fraudulent. The answer then proceeds to allege that before putting the waters upon sale he had the same thoroughly tested, and was advised by reputable physicians that the use of said waters was beneficial in the treatment of certain kidney troubles mentioned in the label; that the water was sold under a guaranty that those not satisfied with the result of the use of the water might have their money back; that said label had been submitted to the proper board in Washington, and it expressed itself as having no objection to same; that the labeling was in good faith, and not in any attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the public.

The exceptions were overruled, and the cause went to trial before a jury. After the government case was in, the claimant moved for an instructed verdict. This motion was renewed at the close of the entire evidence. Each of said motions were refused, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the government, upon which a judgment was entered condemning said water. The errors assigned are as follows:

(1) The court erred in failing to sustain exceptions to the libel.

(2) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to find a verdict for claimant.

(3) The court erred in refusing the charge that the label on the bottles of water did not violate the act of Congress, in that the said label made no statement regarding the therapeutic or curative effect of said waters.

(4) The court erred in refusing to grant a new...