United States v. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills
| Decision Date | 22 May 1909 |
| Docket Number | 15,399. |
| Citation | 189 F. 191 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS COFFEE & SPICE MILLS. |
Truman Post Young, Asst. U.S. Atty.
Thos G. Rutledge and Schnurmacher & Rassieur, for defendant.
Since the adjournment of court on yesterday I have considered more fully the demurrer interposed by the defendant's counsel to the case as stated in the two counts of the information and the evidence offered by the government in support thereof. This is the first case arising under the act of June 30, 1906 (Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 (U.S Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1187)), entitled 'An act for preventing the manufacture, sale or transportation of adulterated or misbranded, or poisonous or deleterious foods drugs, medicines, and liquors, and for regulating traffic therein, and for other purposes,' that has been presented to this court for determination. For a violation of this statute penalties are imposed, and it is made the duty of the United States Attorney, when the Secretary of Agriculture shall report to him any violation of the act, to cause appropriate proceedings to be commenced and prosecuted without delay, for the enforcement of the penalties, etc. The Secretary reported this defendant to the district attorney and as a result the information now under consideration was filed in this court. The proceeding is for the violation of a statute that imposes penalties, and by its terms declares each violation a misdemeanor. The information therefore should be as certain and definite as if the offense were charged in an indictment. Judging it by the well-recognized requirement of pleading in such cases, do the counts or either of them state clearly and with sufficient certainty any offense against the statute under which the proceeding was commenced and is now prosecuted? The importance of and the great good to the public that will follow the enforcement of this act can hardly be measured, and the delay taken by the order of adjournment on yesterday was for the purpose of enabling the court to determine (with proper regard to the contention of the district attorney on the one side and of defendant's counsel on the other) its decision.
The first count of the information charges in substance: 'That by circular No. 19 of the United States Department of Agriculture, dated June 26th, 1906, the Secretary established certain standards of purity for food products as authorized by the act of Congress of March 3, 1903' (Act March 3, 1903, c. 1008, 32 Stat. 1158). That said order No. 19 provided that 'vanilla extract is a flavoring extract prepared from vanilla bean, etc. ' The count then states 'that in trade and commerce and the science of food chemistry, the words 'vanilla extract' signify an extract prepared from the 'vanilla bean, etc.,' and in trade and commerce the words 'vanilla extract' are synonymous with the words 'vanilla flavor' when placed on bottles containing a liquid to be used for flavoring purposes.'
The information (after making the foregoing recitals) charges that the defendant on the 26th of October, 1907, unlawfully and knowingly shipped by the Missouri Pacific Railroad from St. Louis, Mo., to Kansas City, for sale in interstate commerce, a certain bottle labeled 'Nectar Choice Flavor of Vanilla, sugar colored, for flavoring ice cream, etc.;' that the contents of the bottle were adulterated in violation of the act of June, 1906, in that said bottle contained a liquid which did not contain any extract of vanilla as defined by circular No. 19, and by the usages of trade and commerce, and was in fact an imitation and substitute therefor, etc.
By the word 'adulteration,' as used in the act, it is understood to mean 'to corrupt, debase, or make impure by an admixture of a foreign or a baser substance. ' How can it be successfully claimed that because the liquid in the bottle offered in evidence did not contain extract of vanilla that it was therefore adulterated within the meaning of the statute?
The circular No. 19 issued by the Secretary of Agriculture was issued long before the enactment of the statute under which this proceeding is had, and for that reason, if for no other, cannot be considered in determining the question of the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case.
By section 2 of the act of June 30, 1906, it is made an offense to introduce into any state, etc., any food or drugs adulterated or misbranded.
The first count charges that the bottle sent from St. Louis to Kansas City contained 'adulterated liquid extract or flavor.' It also charges that the liquid did not contain any extract from the 'vanilla bean,' but did have a vanilla flavor. The court is now asked to say that 'Vanilla Extract' and 'Vanilla Flavor,' as known to the trade, is one and the same thing, and that in dealing with the defendant in this case 'extract' and 'flavor' are synonymous in meaning, and that therefore, if ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. W. S. Buck Mercantile Co.
...be classified as one to prevent adulteration, which is defined to be the admixture of foreign or inferior substances or impurities, U.S. v. Mills, 189 F. 191; People West, 44 Hun. 162. Coloring is not an adulteration unless it affects the quality of the article, Co. v. Lynch, (Minn.) 124 N.......
-
Bronco Wine Company v. Jolly, S113136.
...enforcing regulations be adopted by all three named secretaries), or indeed under federal law at all. (See United States v. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills (E.D.Mo.1909) 189 F. 191 [finding the food standards relating to vanilla extract unenforceable under the 1906 Act].) In view of the 1906......
-
Dubin v. Michael Reese Hospital and Medical Center
...has been found to mean to corrupt, debase, or make impure by an admixture of a foreign or base Substance (United States v. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills (D.C.Mo.1909), 189 F. 191, 193). Moreover, although the issue of whether the x-radiation supplied the plaintiffs by the defendant was the......
-
United States v. Bel-Mar Laboratories, Inc.
...(2d ed. 1967), and the court is of the opinion that the odd numbered counts are not defective. But see, United States v. St. Louis Coffee & Spice Mills, 189 F. 191 (E.D.Mo. 1909). Defendants further contend that counts nine, ten, thirteen and fourteen are defective because they fail to nega......