NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2465.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U. S. v. German American Specialty Co.   Tried to a jury.   Verdict guilty.   Fine, S25.
ADULTERATION OF "EGG FOR CUSTARD."
On June 26, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Southern 
District of New York, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said dis- 
trict an information against the German American Specialty Co., a 
corporation, New York, N. Y., alleging shipment by said company, 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on April 2, 1910, from the 
State of New York into the State of Connecticut, of a quantity of 
"Egg for Custard" which was adulterated. The product bore no 
label, but was invoiced and sold as "Egg for Custard."
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of 
this Department showed the following results: Water, 8.2 per cent; 
protein (nitrogen X 6.38), 40.6 per cent; ether extract, 15.1 per 
cent; ash, 5.8 per cent; sugars calculated as lactose, 22.5 per cent. 
This product appears to be a mixture of dried eggs and skim milk 
powder. Adulteration of the product was alleged in the information 
for the reason that a certain substance other than "Egg for Custard," 
to wit, skimmed milk, had been substituted in part for the article 
"Egg for Custard."
On February 14, 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 
(Martin, J.):
Mr. Foreman and gentlemen of 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 30th, 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 mean- 
ing 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,
88841°—No. 2465—13
in that a certain substance other than egg for custard, to wit, skim milk had been sub- 
stituted. 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 misde- 
meanor 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 wilfully 
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.
Thereupon the jury retired and afterwards brought in a verdict of 
guilty and the court imposed a fine of $25.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, April 12, 1913.
2465
o