NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 1135.
(Given pursuant to section ± of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ABULTEEATION AND MISBRANDING OF NO. 2 BED WHEAT.
On January 28, 1911, the United States Attorney for the Western 
District of Missouri, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed information in four counts in the District Court of the 
United States for said district, against the Hall Baker Grain Co., 
a corporation, Kansas City, Mo., alleging shipment by it, in viola- 
tion of the Food and Drugs Act, on or about May 3, 1909, from 
the State of Missouri into the State of Texas of a carload of wheat 
which was invoiced and sold as No. 2 red wheat, and which was 
adulterated and misbranded.
Examination of samples of said wheat by the dairy and food com- 
missioner of the State of Texas, acting under the authority of the 
Secretary of Agriculture, showed the product to contain 33 per cent 
hard wheat and 7 per cent mixed wheat. Misbranding was alleged 
in the first count of the information for the reasons that said wheat 
¦was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another 
article of food, to wit, red wheat, another and different article of 
food than the contents of said car, namely mixed wheat; and be- 
cause said wheat was labeled and marked so as to deceive and mis- 
lead the purchaser thereof into the belief that it was red wheat, 
when in fact it was not red wheat, but was mixed wheat. Misbrand- 
ing was alleged in the second count for the reasons that said wheat 
was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive name of another 
article of food, to wit, No. 2 red wheat, another and different arti- 
cle of food than the contents of said car, namely mixed wheat; and 
because said wheat was labeled and marked so as to deceive and 
mislead the purchaser thereof into the belief that it was No. 2 red 
wheat, when in fact it was not No. 2 red wheat, but was mixed wheat.
8785°—No. 1135—11
?p'
Adulteration was alleged in the third count for the reasons that other 
and different substances and articles, to wit, various kinds and grades 
of wheat, had been mixed and packed with said wheat so as to re- 
duce, lower, or injuriously affect the quality and strength of said 
wheat
,
and because other and different substances, to wit, various 
kinds and grades of wheat, had been substituted in part for the wheat 
represented to have been sold and shipped as red wheat; and fur- 
ther because a valuable constituent or part of the wheat sold and 
shipped and represented as red wheat had been in part abstracted 
and removed, that is to say, a certain portion of red wheat had been 
abstracted and removed therefrom and a like quantity of various 
kinds and grades of wheat inferior and less valuable had been sub- 
tituted therefor. Adulteration was alleged in the fourth count for 
the reasons that other and different substances and articles, to wit, 
various kinds and grades of wheat, had been mixed and packed with 
said wheat so as to reduce, lower, and injuriously affect its quality 
and strength; that other and different substances, to wit, various 
kinds and grades of wheat, had been substituted in part for the wheat 
represented and pretended to have been sold and shipped, to wit, 
No. 2 red wheat; that a valuable constituent or part of the wheat 
sold and shipped, to wit, No. 2 red wheat, had been in part abstracted 
and removed, that is to say, a certain portion of No. 2 red wheat had 
been abstracted and removed therefrom, and a like quantity of vari- 
ous kinds and grades of wheat inferior and less valuable had been 
substituted therefor; and that said wheat was mixed and packed 
with other kinds and grades of wheat in a manner whereby damage 
and inferiority were concealed.
On February 11, 1911, the case coming on for trial, the defendant 
pleaded not guilty and the case was tried by jury. On February 14, 
1911, counts 1 and 3 of the information were dismissed on motion 
of the United States attorney; and on said date the case was sub- 
mitted to a jury upon the testimony, argument of counsel, and the 
following instructions of the court:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE "WESTERN DIVISION OF
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    |
v. 
[No. 2895.
HAIR-BAKEK  GRAIN COMPANY, j
THE COURT'S CHARGE.
Owitlemen or the Jury, you have very patiently listened to the testimony in- 
troduced in this case, and the arguments of counsel.   It now becomes my duty 
and pleasure to charge you as to the law.   Under the, system of jurisprudence 
in vogue in this country, it is the province of the jury to find the facts and base 
1135
your verdict upon the facts. It is the province of the Court to instruct you as 
to the law involved. The responsibility of determining the facts is upon you, 
and you alone. The responsibility for the law governing this case is upon me, 
and I alone must bear that burden. It is very important, therefore, in order 
that a just and true verdict may be rendered in this case and no injustice done 
to either party that I, in the first instance, shall give my best thought and effort 
to ascertain what the law is and to instruct you accurately in reference thereto. 
On the other hand, you can not be too deeply impressed with the responsibility 
that is upon you in the discharge of the responsibilities which now rest upon you 
in determining what the facts are. Both the government and the defendant are 
entitled to insist and expect that you shall give to the solution of the problem 
before you your very best thought and consideration, and I have no doubt 
but that you are keenly alive to that responsibility and will discharge it in a 
most satisfactory manner.
It has been stated to you over and over again during the progress of this trial 
that the information filed by the District Attorney against the defendant, the 
Hall-Baker Grain Company in his case some weeks ago, charges a violation of 
the Act of Congress approved June 30,1906, which law is popularly known as the 
"Food and Drugs Act," or " The Pure Food Law." As you are aware, this act in 
a general way prohibits the manufacture and sale of misbranded and adulterated 
foods in the District of Columbia, and in the Territories of the United States, 
and forbids the transportation of misbranded and adulterated foods and drugs 
from one state of the United States to another of those states in interstate com- 
merce. Congress would have no right or power under the Constitution of the 
United States to interfere in any way with the sale and transportation of food 
products within the borders of a single state; but under the Constitution the 
power to regulate commerce among the states is vested solely in Congress, and 
it is because of this power given Congress by the Constitution that this law was 
passed and is made effective in prohibiting the sale of adulterated and mis- 
branded foods and drugs among the states. That is to say, all matters per- 
taining to the sale and transportation of foods and drugs that are misbranded or 
adulterated and which are intended for transportation from one state to 
another state, is left with Congress. It is by virtue of this fact that the United 
States Court has jurisdiction in this case.
The information filed by the District Attorney charges that the Hall-Baker 
Grain Company, a corporation of this state, shipped and delivered for shipment 
on or about the 3rd day of May, 1909, a carload of wheat; that this wheat was 
transported by the Hall-Baker Grain Company from Kansas City, Missouri, to the 
Walker Grain Company located at Fort Worth, Texas. If the defendant did ship 
and offer for shipment the carload of wheat in question and it was transported 
from Kansas City, Missouri, to Fort Worth, Texas, then that is a matter of inter- 
state commerce and the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act with respect to the 
misbranding and adulterating of food products applies and this court Ms 
jurisdiction.
The information in this case is quite long. It is in two counts, counts one 
and three having been dismissed, leaving only counts two and four for your 
consideration. The second count charges a Misbranding of an article of food, 
to wit, one carload of wheat. The fourth count charges an Adulteration of a 
food product, to wit, one carload of wheat. The law relative to misbranding 
of food products, so far as it is applicable under the allegations of the informa- 
tion in this case, is as follows:
"Sec. 8. The term misbranded as used herein shall apply to all drugs or 
articles of food or articles which enter into the composition of food, the package
1135
or .label of which shall bear any statement, design or device regarding such 
article or the ingredients or substances contained therein, which shall be false 
or misleading in any particular, and to any food or drug product which is 
falsely branded as to the state, territory or country in which it is manufactured 
or produced ". 
and also provides that,
"For the purposes of this act, an article shall also be deemed to be misbranded 
in the case of food:
First, if it be an imitation of or offered for sale under the distinctive name 
of another ^article.
Second, if it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the pur- 
chaser    *    *    *"
Now under these provisions of the law the information charges " that the said 
wheat and article of food was offered for sale and sold under the distinctive 
name of another article, to wit, No. 2 red wheat, another and different article 
of food than the contents of said car, namely, mixed wheat". That is to say, 
it is the contention of the government that the defendant in this case shipped 
and delivered for shipment in interstate commerce a food product, to wit, 
mixed wheat in bulk, which was sold and offered for sale under the distinctive 
name of another article of food, to wit, No. 2 red wheat. The issue, therefore, 
under this aspect of the case for the jury to determine is as to whether or not 
the defendant sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce mixed wheat under 
the distinctive name of another article of food, to wit, No. 2 red wheat.
The information further charges in respect to misbranding that said wheat, 
and article of food, was labeled and marked so as to deceive and mislead the 
purchasers thereof, that is to say, said wheat and article of food, was labeled 
and .marked No. 2 red wheat when in truth and in fact it was not red wheat, 
but was as a matter of fact mixed wheat.
The contention of the .government in this respect being, as I understand it, 
that the account of sales and certificate of inspection which passed from the 
defendant company to the Walker Grain Company constitutes a labeling and 
branding of the article of food transported in interstate commerce, to wit, 
wheat, and that this labeling or branding was of such a nature as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser. In other words, the government contends that 
inasmuch as the account of sales rendered by the Hall-Baker Grain Company 
to the Walker Grain Company for this wheat designates it as No. 2 red wheat; 
that the certificate of inspection issued by the Chief Grain Inspector of Kansas 
City, Missouri, a state officer, and consigned by the Hall-Baker Grain Company 
to the Walker Grain Company at Fort Worth, Texas, designates this food 
product as No. 2 red wheat, and that this constitutes a misbranding under the 
sub-division of foods of the Food.and Drugs Act.
The above provisions of the law and the allegations of the information all 
refer to the charge of misbranding in this case, and swill refer more specifically 
to these matters hereafter in my charge and will now proceed to quote the 
iav/ with respect to the charge in the information as to adulteration.
Section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act with respect to adulteration, so far as 
applicable to the charges contained in the information in this case, is as follows :
" Sec. 7. That for the purposes of this act an article shall be deemed to be 
adulterated in the case of foods :
First, if .any substance, has been mixed or packed with it so as to reduce or 
lower or injuriously affect its quality or strength.
Second, if any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the article.
Third, if any valuable constituent of the article has been wholly or in part 
abstracted. 
1135
Fourth, if it be mixed, colored, powdered, coated, or stained in a manner 
whereby damage or inferiority is concealed."
The fourth count of the information charges a violation of these four pro- 
visions of Section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act in the case of foods; as follows:
"(a) That other and different substances and articles, to wit, various kinds 
and grades of wheat, had been mixed and packed' with said wheat and article 
of food so as to reduce, lower and injuriously affect the quality and strength 
of said wheat and article of food.
(b) That other and different substances, to wit, various kinds and grades of 
wheat, had been substituted in part for the wheat and article of food repre- 
sented and pretended to have been sold and'shipped, to wit, No. 2 red wheat.
(c) That a valuable constituent or part of the wheat and article of food 
sold and shipped, and pretended to have been sold and shipped, to wit, No. 2 
red wheat, had been in part abstracted and removed, that is'to say, a; certain 
portion of No. 2 red wheat had been abstracted and removed therefrom, and 
a like quantity of various kinds and grades of wheat inferior and less valuable, 
had been substituted therefor.
(d) That said wheat and article of food was mixed and packed with other 
kinds and grades of wheat in a manner whereby damage and inferiority were 
concealed "
In other words, the information charges the violation of the four sections of 
the Food and Drugs Act quoted above relative to adulteration as to No. 2 red 
wheat.
Now to re-state to you in simpler form, if I can, the charges in the informa- 
tion with respect to adulteration, I have to say, that as I understand it, the 
government charges that the wheat shipped and offered for shipment as de- 
tailed to you in the evidence in this case was adulterated because the defendant 
sold or pretended to sell to the Walker Grain Company in Fort Worth, Texas, 
No. 2 red wheat; that as a matter of fact there was hard wheat of various 
kinds mixed and packed with this No. 2 red wheat so as to reduce or lower or 
injuriously affect its quality or strength.
Second, the government contends that it was adulterated because a substan- 
tial quantity of hard wheat had been substituted in part for the No. 2 red wheat 
and this mixture was in fact shipped in interstate commerce by the defendant 
company.
Third, that the wheat in question was adulterated because a valuable con- 
stituent, to wit, No. 2 red wheat, which was the article pretended to have been 
sold, had been wholly or in part abstracted and hard wheat substituted therefor.
And further the government contends that the wheat in question was' adul- 
terated because it had been mixed and packed in a manner whereby damage 
and inferiority is concealed, that is, that hard wheats of various varieties and 
kinds had been mixed with No. 2 red wheat, and that this mixing hard' wheat 
with the soft wheat concealed damage and inferiority. This is, as I understand 
it, the government's position with respect to adulteration.
As stated counts one and three of the information have been dismissed on 
motion of the United States Attorney, leaving counts two and four for your 
consideration. To both counts two and four, the defendant has entered its 
plea of not guilty. A plea of not guilty challenges and puts in issue ail material 
allegations in counts two and four of the information, thereby calling from the 
government such testimony and evidence as to show the guilt of the defendant 
beyond a reasonable doubt before you can find a verdict of guilty under either 
of those counts. A reasonable doubt means, as the term implies, that there 
must be no reasonable doubt.   While this is not a doubt sought after, or a
1135
6
captious doubt, but it means such a doubt as would make you hesitate to act 
on and concerning some matter of importance to yourself or one of your family. 
If the evidence: on the part of the government has so satisfied you as to leave 
no reasonable doubt in the sense to which I have just alluded, then the proofs 
are sufficient to warrant a conviction. There is a presumption of innocence 
attending the defendant in all criminal prosecutions like this. This presump- 
tion of innocence stands as a fact like any other fact in the case, but by pre- 
sumption is not meant a conclusive presumption or that which could not be 
overcome. It is simply a presumption to be given such weight as in your judg- 
ment it is entitled to receive, and you will keep in mind that you will consider 
this question of reasonable doubt and this presumption of innocence, and then 
take all of the testimony and evidence and say whether or not your mind is 
satisfied of the guilt of the defendant either under count two or under count 
four, and if you are so satisfied your verdict will be that of guilty, and if not 
so satisfied your verdict will be that of not guilty.
I hand you herewith four forms of verdicts, one of guilty and one of not 
guilty under the second count, and one of guilty and one of not guilty under 
the fourth count. After reaching a conclusion you will have your foreman 
sign one of the verdicts as to each of said counts and bring that into court as 
your verdict, destroying the other two forms.
The defendant in open court conceded that the wheat in question was shipped 
from Kansas City, Missouri, to Forth Worth, Texas, in car No. 40724 A. T. & 
S. F. to the Walker Grain Company, Fort Worth, Texas, and that the car was 
sealed and that the doors had not been opened while the car was in transit for 
shipment, and was in the same condition when received at Fort Worth, Texas, 
as when started on its trip from Kansas City, Missouri, and you will take such 
agreement in open court as facts without further testimony, and you will have 
no controversy upon that proposition of fact.
Directing your attention now to the charges in the second count of the infor- 
mation with respect to misbranding, you are instructed that the matter of 
misbranding is under two heads :
First, the information charges that the defendant is guilty of misbranding 
the wheat in question, because it sold and offered for sale said wheat in inter- 
state commerce as No. 2 red wheat, when as a matter of fact it was mixed wheat. 
The government contends that No. 2 red wheat is a distinctive trade name 
applied to certain quality of soft wheat and is a term that is distinct and well 
understood by grain men, millers and elevator men throughout this section 
of the country, and that it has in its commercial sense a well understood mean- 
ing. The defendant, as I understand it, denies that No. 2 red wheat is a distinc- 
tive trade name applied to a particular quality of red wheat, and this forms a 
question of fact for you to determine. The Court instructs you that if you 
find and believe beyond a reasonable doubt, as that term has been heretofore 
explained to you,, that the defendant did sell and offer for sale in interstate 
commerce the wheat in question under the distinctive trade name of No. 2 red 
wheat, and that that term is well understood in a commercial sense by millers 
and dealers in grain, then said wheat was misbranded and your finding will 
be in favor of the government upon this issue. On the other hand, if you find 
and believe from the evidence that No. 2 red wheat is not a distinctive trade 
name and is not so understood among dealers in grain, then your finding will 
be for the defendant as to this phase of the question of misbranding.
You are further instructed on this question as to the second subdivision of 
misbranding. The food in question, as you are well aware, was that of a car- 
load of wheat in bulk, and was not sacked or in boxes, or packages of any 
1135
kind, but many hundreds of bushels of wheat in the one car. The government 
contends that it would be a physical impossibility, or at least it would be 
very inconvenient, if it could be done at all, to put or print a written label on 
such wheat in bulk. If you find that fo be so, that is to say, that it would 
be either impossible or most inconvenient to thus label a car of wheat in bulk, 
you are instructed that the label in such a case consists of the designation of 
the quality by an invoice sheet and by a certificate of inspection made by in- 
spectors in the employ of the state of Missouri, and issued to the consignor, 
and with or separately sent to the purchaser at Fort Worth, Texas; that, 
within the meaning of the statute, would be the label or brand as designated 
by the seller to the purchaser in question of the wheat. That is to say, it is 
the contention of the government that the designation in the accounts sales 
and in the certificate of inspection above referred to, of the wheat in question, 
as No. 2 red wheat, constitutes a label and brand of the wheat as No. 2 red 
wheat. You are therefore instructed that if you find and believe from the 
evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, at or about the time 
this wheat was shipped in interstate commerce and sold or offered for sale by 
it to the Walker Grain Company at Fort Worth, Texas," rendered an account 
sales to the Walker Grain Company, wherein the wheat in question was desig- 
nated as No. 2 red wheat, when, in fact, it was mixed wheat, and sent or 
caused to be sent to the Walker Grain Company a certificate of inspection 
issued by the grain inspector of the state of Missouri, and that these papers 
constitute a part of the transaction connected with the sale of said wheat, 
then the court instructs you that said wheat was misbranded within the mean- 
ing of the statute in question, and your verdict will be for the government upon 
this branch of the question of misbranding. If, on the other hand, you find 
and believe that the account sales and the certificate of inspection were not 
sent to the Walker Grain Company by the defendant as a part of this trans- 
action, and that the wheat in question was not designated as No. 2 red wheat, 
then your verdict will be for the defendant upon this branch of the question.
Upon the question of adulteration, under the fourth count of the information 
herein, the court instructs you that the information charges, in substance, that 
the wheat in question was mixed with hard wheat in such a way as to reduce 
and lower and injuriously affect the quality and strength of the wheat; that 
is to say, that the defendant offered for sale and pretended to sell to the Walker 
Grain Company, of Fort Worth, Texas, No. 2 red wheat, when, as a matter of 
fact, it was mixed with hard wheat of various kinds and qualities. You have 
heard the testimony of the witnesses as to the grading of this wheat. It is the 
contention of the defendant in this matter that it did not see the wheat that it 
sold the Walker Grain Company, and that it did not have anything to do with 
the inspection thereof or the grade that was to be put upon the wheat; that 
this was a matter entirely within the province of the state officials of the state 
of Missouri, but that they had no control over that. Furthermore, that it was 
provided in the contract of sale that the wheat was to be sold in accordance 
with the Missouri inspection grades and weights. The court instructs you that 
this is not a matter of defense, but only goes to the amount of fine to be 
imposed in the event you find a verdict of guilty under this count, and if there 
is a conviction the amount of the fine is to be determined by the court, and 
with which you have nothing to do.
You can, gentlemen of the Jury, very well understand why this is so.   If the
National Pure Food law is to be of any value.to the people, and especially to
the consumer of the food products that are shipped in interstate commerce in
such large amounts throughout this country, it must not depend for its con-
1135
8
struction upon state officers and contracts between elevator men and millers 
or other people dealing in food products, other than the consumer himself. 
Indeed, it is my belief that even if a national officer or employe of the Govern- 
ment should falsely or erroneously misbrand or adulterate a food product 
which is transported in interstate commerce, it would not avail the defendant 
as a defense, because, the question comes back for your determination; Was 
the wheat in question No. 2 Red Wheat, or was it a mixed wheat containing 
quite a percentage, more than 25 per cent, of hard wheat? This is a question 
of fact for you to determine from all the evidence that has been introduced in 
the case. If you find that the No. 2 red wheat was thus mixed with hard 
wheat of various kinds, then the court instructs you that it was adulterated 
within the meaning of this law and your verdict will be for the Government 
upon that issue under the fourth count herein. If, on the other hand, you do 
not believe from the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wheat was 
mixed with hard wheat in sufficient quantities to make it of a lower grade than 
No. 2 Red Wheat, then your verdict will be for the defendant.
There are three other charges of adulteration which are all practically the 
same. The first of the remaining three charges that if any substance has been 
substituted, wholly or in part, for the article sold, or if any valuable constituent 
of the article has been wholly or in part abstracted, and third, if it has been 
mixed whereby inferiority has been concealed, then there is adulteration. These 
three matters are all practically the same thing, stated in different ways. If 
hard -wheat was mixed with the No. 2 red wheat, then, in that sense, hard wheat 
•has been substituted in part for the article sold. Again, if No. 2 red wheat has 
been taken out and replaced by hard wheat, then a valuable constituent of the 
article has been abstracted in part, and likewise, if hard wheat has been mixed 
with the No. 2 red wheat in a manner whereby inferiority is concealed, then it 
has been adulterated within the meaning of the Act. But, whether or not the 
mixing of hard wheat with soft wheat does conceal inferiority, is a question of 
fact for you to determine, and if you find and believe from the evidence, beyond 
a reasonable doubt, that such is the case, then your verdict will be for the 
Government upon this branch of the case. If, on the other hand, you do not 
believe that the mixing of hard wheat with the No, 2 red wheat does conceal 
inferiority, then your verdict will be in favor of the defendant upon that issue.
The defendant herein is a corporation, but you will have no prejudice against 
it by reason of that fact, and you will not show it any consideration by reason 
of that fact. But it is entitled to the same fair trial, neither more nor less, 
than if-the defendant was an individual instead of being a corporation.
Many of the states have Pure Food and Drug Acts of their own. You see 
readily that the Act of the state legislature, however, cannot be operative 
against a shipment from Missouri to the State of Texas, as is charged in this 
case. Therefore, the Congress of the United States, in its wisdom, enacted a 
National Pure Food and Drugs Act which was approved by the President of 
the United States June 30, 1906, having now been in force for practically four 
years and a half. These Pure Food and Drugs Acts are for the purpose of en- 
abling the consumer to get and receive what he orders and desires to receive. 
If the housewife and the servant girl who prepare foods, and the bakers, are 
of the opinion and believe that No. 2 red wheat is.a soft wheat and makes a 
whiter flour and the product of which, when made into pastry or crackers or 
biscuits, is more attractive, or superior in quality, or more appetizing to those 
who are to eat the same, and if they order the flour made from such wheat 
and are willing to pay for the same, they have the right to receive the same 
when they order it. And it is the purpose of the Act of Congress of June 30, 
1135
9
1906, to protect the consumer in that right. The question is not whether hard 
wheat or mixed wheat will make a flour as nutritious as the soft wheat flour. 
The question is not whether hard wheat flour or mixed wheat flour is harmful 
as compared with the soft wheat flour. The consumer has the right to have 
what he wants to have that is obtainable and he is willing to pay therefor.
The defendant contends that it sold the wheat under a contract with the 
Walker Grain Company at Fort Worth, Texas, as No. 2 Red Wheat, and that it, 
the defendant, did not know but that such wheat was being shipped in the 
car, number as before stated, and that it, the defendant, had no intention of 
shipping any other quality or variety of wheat than No. 2 red wheat. But 
such contention, though 3^ou may agree with that contention, does not avail the 
defendant herein as a defense. And that is so because the question is under 
the fourth count as to adulteration, as well as under count two as to misbrand- 
ing: Did the defendant ship, in interstate commerce, in the car of wheat in 
question, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Fort Worth, Texas, No. 2 red wheat, 
or did it ship the car of wheat, the same being mixed, a part of it No. 2 red 
wheat, and 25 or a greater per cent thereof hard wheat? And if, regardless of 
what defendant believed about it, the car was one of mixed wheat as before 
stated, then it is guilty of adulteration, providing you find the other elements 
entering' into the question of adulteration and misbranding are present and 
appear, beyond a reasonable doubt, from the testimony in the case as herein- 
before stated.
This is an important case, although the penalty is small. This statute, like 
all other statutes, is to be enforced if the facts warrant it. If the facts do. not 
warrant it your verdict will be not guilty, but if you are satisfied from the 
evidence that the facts warrant it, you will say so by your verdict. You will 
not treat the case lightly, but seriously and thoughtfully, giving it your very 
best judgment, regardless of whom it pleases and who are displeased, showing- 
no favors to either side.    Your verdict should express the truth.
Whereupon the jury rendered a verdict of guilty on the second 
and fourth counts of the information. On February 14, 1911, the 
defendant company filed a motion for a new trial, which motion was 
overruled by the court on June 16, 1911, and on July 22, 1911, the 
court imposed a fine of $50 and costs. An appeal from said judgment 
was noted by the defendant to the United States Circuit Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which appeal is now pending.
W. M. HAYS, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 
WASHINGTON, D. C, August 30, 1911.
1135
o