United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 5542.
Citation | 46 F.2d 354 |
Decision Date | 16 September 1930 |
Docket Number | No. 5542.,5542. |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. SHREVEPORT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana |
Philip H. Mecom, U. S. Atty., and J. Fair Hardin, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Shreveport, La.
Pugh, Grimmet & Boatner, of Shreveport, La., for defendant.
This is a criminal information, charging the defendant with misbranding certain corn bran, in violation of the Pure Food & Drugs Act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 768 21 USCA § 1-5, 7-15) in that each sack of said product was branded as containing "100 lbs. net," whereas in truth they contained a lesser quantity. By amendment it is charged that some of the sacks contained not more than 85 pounds net, and that the average was about 96 pounds.
Defendant moved to quash the information on the ground that said act violates articles 1, 2, and 3 of the federal Constitution because it attempts "to grant legislative powers to the judiciary and to the executive departments of the government"; and it violates the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in that it "seeks to deprive of life, liberty and property without due process of law," as well as the Fourteenth Amendment, "for the same reason"; and, further, that it violates the Sixth Amendment because "it is too indefinite, sets up no ascertainable standard of guilt and defendant cannot be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against it thereunder."
After declaring that sacks or packages containing articles of food shall have the net weight or measure plainly stamped thereon, the third paragraph of section 8 of the act, as amended (37 Stat. 732, 21 USCA § 10, par. third), provides as follows:
It must be remembered that this is a criminal action for the alleged violation of this statute, one of the very few that have been brought thereunder, and, while the proceeding is against a corporation, it might easily have been one charging an individual, who in default of payment of fine could be subjected to imprisonment. Hence a much stricter construction is required than if it were merely an act...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Zeigler v. Pickett, Co.
-
UNITED STATES V. SHREVEPORT GRAIN & ELEVATOR CO.
...variations that are permissible from the quantities marked on packages is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. P. 85. 46 F.2d 354 Appeal from a judgment quashing an indictment. MR. JUSTICE SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court. The defendant (appellee) was charge......
-
State v. S. & W. Waldman, Inc.
...'the dealer could never know whether he was violating the law or not until he was brought into court.' United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator Co., 46 F.2d 354, 355 (D.C.D.La.1930) reversed 287 U.S. 77, 53 S.Ct. 42, 77 L.Ed. 175 (1932). On appeal, the United States Supreme Court constr......
- Putman v. Beaver State Shingle Co.