United States v. Charles L. Heinle Specialty Co.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1910
• Docket Number: 33.
• Citation: 175 F. 299
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. CHARLES L. HEINLE SPECIALTY CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

175 F. 299

UNITED STATES v. CHARLES L. HEINLE SPECIALTY CO.

No. 33.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

January 4, 1910

Jasper Yeates Brinton and J. Whitaker Thompson, for the United States.

William R. Newgeon, for defendant.

HOLLAND District Judge.

This is a demurrer filed by the defendant to an information lodged against it by the district attorney for the Eastern district of Pennsylvania for having sold an adulterated and misbranded article of food manufactured by it and in violation of the ninth section of the pure food act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat 771, c. 3915 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1193)), executed and delivered a false guaranty to the effect that the merchandise sold was not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of the act. The dealer to whom this adulterated and misbranded food was sold by the defendant, and to whom the false guaranty was given, sold the same in interstate commerce, and upon the discovery by the government officials that the article was misbranded it is alleged the dealer who sold the same in interstate commerce established the guaranty of the defendant; whereupon this information was filed.

The defendant's demurrer alleges that the information sets forth no charge or offense for which the defendant can be convicted and punished under the act of Congress approved June 30, 1906, because the ninth section, upon which the information is based, is unconstitutional. Under the second section of this act the introduction into interstate commerce of adulterated or misbranded foods is prohibited, and any person violating this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor subject to certain fines and penalties. The ninth section is as follows:

'That no dealer shall be prosecuted under the provisions of this act when he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer or other party residing in the United States from whom he purchased such articles, to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of this act, designating it. Said guaranty to afford protection shall contain the name and address of the party or parties making the sale of such articles to such dealer, and in such case said party or parties shall be amenable to the prosecutions, fines and other penalties which would attach in due course, to the dealer under the provisions of this act.'

The defendant in this case is charged in the information with having executed and delivered to the dealer who sold the adulterated and misbranded food in interstate commerce the following guaranty, which is alleged to be false:

'We, the vendors of the articles mentioned in the foregoing invoice, hereby guarantee and warrant the same to be in full conformity with the federal act of June 30, 1906, known as the 'Food and Drug Act,' * * * in that the said articles are not adulterated or misbranded within the meaning of * * * the aforesaid act of Congress.'

It is not contended by the defendant that Congress has no constitutional right to prohibit the introduction of adulterated and misbranded foods in interstate commerce; but the claim is that, so far as the defendant's connection with the adulterated and misbranded goods was concerned, the entire transaction of manufacturing, selling, and delivering by it was consummated within the state, as was the issuance of the false certificate, and, as the defendant's connection with the article was entirely within the state,...