United States v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup
| Decision Date | 08 April 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 264.,264. |
| Citation | 110 F.2d 914 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. 52 DRUMS MAPLE SYRUP, etc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Joseph A. McNamara, U. S. Atty., of Burlington, Vt., and Charles F. Ryan, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Rutland, Vt., for plaintiff-appellant.
Arthur L. Graves and William S. Burrage, both of St. Johnsbury, Vt., for claimant-appellee.
Before L. HAND, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
The appellant is here seeking the reversal of judgments for the claimant in condemnation proceedings under the Pure Food and Drugs Act on the sole ground that during a trial by jury reversible error was committed in the admission of evidence offered by the claimant.
The government seized at St. Johnsbury, Vt., a number of steel drums containing maple syrup which had concededly been shipped there at various times in interstate commerce in carload lots with other drums of such syrup. Libels in proceedings for the condemnation of the syrup under the provisions of the Pure Food and Drugs Act (Secs. 8(5) and 14 of 21 U.S.C.A.) were duly filed and the appellee, appearing as the claimant of all the syrup, answered each libel. The several proceedings were consolidated for trial by jury in the district court where a verdict was returned for the claimant in each proceeding and judgment thereon entered. This appeal followed. There was the same consolidation of causes for hearing on appeal.
The claimant processes maple sugar and syrup and manufactures maple sugar products therefrom at its plant in St. Johnsbury, Vt. It bought the maple syrup which was seized outside Vermont and caused it to be shipped to its plant at St. Johnsbury to be used as a raw material in its business but not to be sold or otherwise used until it had been processed.
The evidence clearly established that in making maple syrup by evaporating water from the maple sap rather minute amounts of lead do get into the syrup from lead in the paint and in the solder and sometimes, perhaps, in the composition, of the utensils used in the process. This lead is a poisonous substance and a comparatively small amount will make the syrup, which is a food within the meaning of the statute, a food dangerous to health. The government has established what is called a working tolerance of .025 grains of lead per pound which for present purposes may be treated as the maximum amount of lead maple syrup may contain without being barred from interstate shipment.
It was claimed by the government that the syrup which was seized contained, when shipped in interstate commerce, added lead to an amount which made it an adulterated food within the meaning of Sec. 8 (5) of 21 U.S.C.A., and subject to seizure and condemnation when moved in interstate commerce. The claimant denied that the government's proof was sufficient to establish the claimed adulteration and also contended that the statute did not apply to the seizures for other reasons of which we need now notice particularly only one. As for the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Fishman
... ... Def. Second Brief at 9; ... See Fishman Decl. ¶ 52; SGX-2000 ... For ... all of these reasons, the defense contends that ... interchangeably); United States v. 52 Drums Maple ... Syrup , 110 F.2d 914, 915 (2d Cir. 1940) (referring to ... ...
-
United States v. TWO BAGS, ETC.
...is immaterial on the issue of the government's right to forfeit the food because of the interstate commerce shipment. United States v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup, 110 F.2d 914. See also Union Dairy Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 250 F. 231, As was declared in United States v. Thirteen Crates of Fr......
-
United States v. Bodine Produce Co.
...whether the product was adulterated when introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. United States v. 52 Drums Maple Syrup, 2 Cir., 1940, 110 F.2d 914, 915. The Court is convinced, however, that the exemption proviso does not help the defendant.8 To see this proviso i......
-
Continental Seafoods, Inc. v. Schweiker, 80-2462
...articles from import notwithstanding promises that the deleterious condition will be corrected. See United States v. 52 Drums of Maple Syrup, 110 F.2d 914, 915 (2d Cir. 1940). Moreover, there was evidence in the record that many people either do not cook shrimp properly 25 or, like the patr......