NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2413.
(Given pursuant to section  4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
ADULTERATION AND MISBRANDING OF SHRED COCONUT.
On November 7, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern 
District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of 
Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said 
district an information against the Dunham Manufacturing Co., a 
corporation, of Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company, 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on September 30, 1911, from 
the State of New York into the State of New Jersey, of two consign- 
ments of shred coconut which was adulterated and misbranded. The 
first consignment of the product was labeled: " -J lb. Net Dunham's 
Original Shred Cocoanut Guaranteed by Dunham Manufacturing 
Company under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906. Serial No. 
1461. Brooklyn, N. Y. Warranted to keep sweet in all climates if 
kept in a dry place." The second consignment of the product was 
labeled: "5^ package Dunham's original shred cocoanut Guaranteed 
by Dunham Manufacturing Company under F. & D. Act, June 30, 
1906.    Serial  No.  1461.    220  36th St.  Bush  Terminal,  Brooklyn,
N. y."
Analyses of samples of the product in both consignments by the 
Bureau of Chemistry of this Department showed that they contained 
added sugar and added glycerin. Adulteration of the product was 
alleged in the information for the reason that it contained an added 
substance and substances, which had been substituted in part for the 
said article, to wit, glycerin and sugar. Misbranding was alleged for 
the reason that the statement " Shred cocoanut" borne on the label 
of the product was false and misleading, in that said label purported 
that the product was composed wholly of shred coconut, when, in 
truth and in fact, the label did not set forth the ingredients in the 
product and failed to set forth that it contained another ingredient 
and ingredients, to wit, glycerin and sugar.
87258°— No. 2413—13
On January IT, 1913, the case having come on for trial before the 
court and a jury, after the hearing of testimony and argument by 
counsel, the following charge was delivered to the jury by the court 
(Veeder, J.) :
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY : I think you have gathered from the evidence and 
the arguments that the actual issue raised is a very simple one. I shall submit 
it to you in a very few words. The defendant corporation is charged with the 
offense of adulteration and misbranding an article of food in interstate ship- 
ment.- The information contains four counts. You will remember that there 
were two shipments in evidence, one known as the Dannenhauer shipment, 
the other as the Dickinson shipment. Both were from New York to Camden, 
New Jersey. The defendant has admitted the interstate shipment, and the 
question before you is whether it is guilty of the offense prescribed in the Act. 
You will probably find no reason to distinguish between the two shipments. 
Under each shipment there is an allegation of the offense of adulteration, and 
under each an allegation of misbranding. The first and third counts relate to 
adulteration, and the second and fourth relate to misbranding. That will prob- 
ably suffice so far as the various counts in the information are concerned.
This indictment is based upon a salutary law known as the Food and Drugs 
Act. It is a rather extensive act, and covers a great variety of circumstances. 
But the general purpose of the act is to prevent the sale under misleading 
terms of foods and drugs. There are a great many specific provisions with 
which in this case you have nothing to do, and I shall now point out the 
material provisions. The first and third counts relate to adulteration. The 
Act provides:
" That the introduction into any State or Territory or the District of 
Columbia, or from any foreign country, or shipment to any foreign country of 
any article of food or drugs which is adulterated or misbranded, within the 
meaning of this Act, is hereby prohibited; and any person who shall ship or 
deliver for shipment from any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, 
or to a foreign country, or who shall receive in any State or Territory or the 
District of Columbia from any other State or Territory or the District of 
Columbia, or a foreign country, and having so received, shall deliver, in 
original unbroken packages, for pay or otherwise, or offer to deliver to any 
other person, any such article so adulterated or misbranded within the mean- 
ing of this Act, or any person who shall sell or offer for sale in the District 
of Columbia or the Territories of the United States any such adulterated or 
misbranded foods or drugs, or export or offer to export the same to any 
foreign country," is guilty of an offense.
Now this case relates to an article of food, and the Act goes on to say :
" That for the purposes of this Act an article shall be deemed to be adul- 
terated :
In the case of food :
If any substance has been mixed and packed with it so as to reduce or lower 
or injuriously affect its quality or strength."
You will observe that it is unnecessary to resort to a dictionary meaning of 
the term adulteration, because the Act specifically prescribes what is meant by 
adulterated. The first and third counts are based on the second subdivision, 
which says: "If any substance has been substituted wholly or in part for the 
article." That, for the purposes of this case, is the definition of what adultera- 
tion is; and if you find beyond a reasonable doubt from this evidence that in 
these two shipments any substance was substituted wholly or in part for the 
article, then the defendant is guilty under those two counts.
2413
With respect to the second and fourth counts, relating to misbranding, the 
phraseology of the statute is somewhat different.
Section 8 provides: "That 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 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 and misleading in any particular "—it is unnecessary to 
read you what follows in that paragraph—and then it proceeds:
" That for the purposes of this Act an article shall also be deemed to be mis- 
branded in certain specific particulars, and one of them is in the case of food
If it be labeled or branded so as to deceive or mislead the purchaser."
You will observe how this differs from section regarding adulteration. It 
specified what should be deemed adulteration. But with reference to mis- 
branding the statute says that it shall apply to all drugs or articles of food, 
the package or label of which shall bear any statement, or device, regarding the 
article or ingredients or substances contained therein, which shall be false 
or misleading in any particular; and then, after that broad phraseology, the 
statute goes on to specify that for the purposes of this act an article shall 
also,—that is, in addition to what has gone before,—be deemed to be mis- 
branded in several particulars which follow. The only one that is material 
to this case is: if it be labeled or branded so as to mislead or deceive the 
purchaser. If you find beyond a reasonable doubt that this article of food was 
misbranded as defined in that statute then the defendant is guilty.
Now that is really all there is of this case. You have heard the evidence. 
There is little or no contest about the facts. It was testified by an officer of 
the defendant corporation that this cocoanut was imported in bulk; then the 
cover was taken off and it was shredded and mixed with sugar and glycerine. 
That is the finished product which has been exhibited to you. There has been 
some suggestion here that the term ' shredded cocoanut would signify to the 
purchaser that sugar and glycerine entered into its composition. Does that 
appeal to your judgment? You are to determine what the label means, and 
whether there is or is not an infruition of this statute. Does shredded cocoanut 
indicate anything more to your mind than cocoanut that has been shredded—¦ 
that is, torn into shreds? Is there anything about the designation to indicate 
that anything else entered into its composition? The process of manufacture 
and the ingredients have been stated. The government's chemist has testified 
that while there is a small percentage of sugar in cocoanut in its natural state, 
and slight traces of glycerine; but that the sugar appearing in the Dannemhauer 
shipment was 24.90 per cent and in the Dickinson shipment was 29.17 per cent; 
and that the glycerine in the former was 3.79 per cent and in the latter was 
2.35 per cent.
You will bear in mind that the first and third counts relate to adulteration, 
and the second and fourth to misbranding. If you find the defendant guilty 
on all counts, your verdict will be a general verdict of guilty; if you find the 
defendant not guilty on all counts you will so specify.
Thereupon the jury retired and subsequently returned a verdict of 
guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $25.
W. L. MOORE, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture. 
WASHINGTON, D. C, March U, 191$.
2413
o