United States v. Sixty Barrels of Wine

Citations

• 225 F. 846
• 1915 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1318

Syllabus

<p>1. Food '<@=24—Food and Drugs Act—Misbranding Wine—Burden of Proof.</p> <p>In the government’s libel, charging misbranding of wine under Food and Drugs Act June 30', 1906, c. 3915, 34 Stat. 70S (Comp. St. 1913, §§ 8717-8728), it must establish by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the content of the libeled barrels was not “Ohio Claret Wine,” as labeled, within the law and the definition of the Food Department, accepted by the claimant, and also that the contents of the barrels was a pom-ace wine, as charged, outright, or that a pomace wine was substituted in whole or in part for “Ohio Claret Wine.”</p> <p>LEd. Note.-—For other cases, see Food, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dec. Dig. <&=24.]</p> <p>2. Food <@=15—Food and Drugs. Act—“Pomace Wine.”</p> <p>A “pomace wine,” under the Food and Drugs Act, within Ohio and Missouri, is any product made by the addition of water and sugar to the pomace of grapes from which the juice has been partially expressed, and by fermenting the mixture until a fermented beverage is produced.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Food, Cent. Dig. § 14; Dec. Dig. <S=15.]</p> <p>3. Evidence <@=588—Contradiction by Physical Facts.</p> <p>Where the testimony of a witness is positively contradicted by the physical facts, neither court nor jury can be allowed to credit it.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. § 2437; Dec. Dig. <©=588.]</p> <p><@x^For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p> <p>4. DOOn ©=»24—JO'S BRANDING'—SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.</p> <p>Jii the government’s libel against 60 barrels of wine, charging misbranding, evidence held sufficient to show that they contained pomace wine, instead of claret, as labeled.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—Ifor other cases, see Food, Cent. Dig. § 17; Dee. Dig. <S=>24.1</p> <p>©=5>For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER In all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes</p>