Information charging violation of section 2 of the Food and Drugs Act. Jury trial. Verdict of guilty.

MARTIN, District Judge (charge to the jury).

This indictment rests upon a provision of what is called the Pure Food Act, which was passed and approved by the Federal Government on June 30, 1906, and which prohibits a substituting of any article wholly or in part for the article as designated in its trade-marking. That is the meaning of the statute upon which this indictment rests.

The indictment, says that this defendant company manufactured a certain article of food which article of food bore no label, and was shipped and sold as being an article of food known as egg for custard, which said article shipped as aforesaid was adulterated, in that a certain substance other than egg for custard, to wit, skim milk, had been substituted. So in order to convict this defendant, it must come under clause second—if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article, as being a misdemeanor under the statute.

There is a clause before that, as to reducing the strength of any article by having something else in it, but that does not apply to this indictment.

So the question for you to say is whether the defendant has willingly and willfully substituted an article under the wrong designation, and brought itself within this statute. That is a question of fact for you to dispose of.

As to the degree of culpability, that is for the court, if you find it guilty at all.

This defendant is entitled to the same rights that you and I should have, if we were charged with a crime, and that is that we are not to be convicted unless the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt the charge alleged against us.

Take the case.