Steinhardt Bros. v. United States

Citations

• 191 F. 798
• 1911 U.S. App. LEXIS 4987

Syllabus

<p>1. Indictment and Information (§ 132*) — Election Between Counts— Food and Drugs Act.</p> <p>In a prosecution for violation of Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 768 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1187), by misbranding, tbe government cannot be required to elect between counts, one of wbicb describes tbe article as a drug,, and tbe other as a food or drink, where tbe question is in controversy.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent, Dig. §§ 425-453; Dee. Dig. § 132.*]</p> <p>2. Druggists (§ 12*) — Food and Drugs Act — Construction—Prosecution for Violation.</p> <p>Under Food and Drugs Act June 30, 1906, c. 3915, § 9, 34 Stat. 771 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1193), which provides that no dealer shall he prosecuted for a violation of the act “when he can establish a guaranty signed by the wholesaler, jobber, manufacturer, * * * from whom-he purchases such articles to the effect that the same is not adulterated or misbranded,” such a guaranty, signed several months after a prosecution was instituted and shortly before the trial, is not a defense.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Druggists, Dec. Dig. § 12.*</p> <p>What constitutes a violation of pure food regulations, see note to Brina v. United States, 105 C. C. A. 559.]</p>