NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2473.
(fiuen pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drags Act.)
U.   S.  v.  Scudder  Syrup  Co.   Tried  to  a. jury.   Verdict  guilty.   Fine,  $50
and  costa.
MISBRANDING OF SYRUP.
On July 27, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Northern 
District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agri- 
culture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said 
district an information against the Scudder Syrup Co., a corpora- 
tion, Chicago, Ill., alleging "shipment by said defendant, in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act, on September 21, 1910, from the State 
of Illinois into the State of Tennessee, of a quantity of Scudder's 
Canada Syrup which was misbranded. The product was labeled: 
(On case) " Two Doz. Purity Quarts Scudder's Canada Syrup, Im- 
ported only by Scudder Maple Syrup Company, Chicago, Illinois, 
Full Measure."
Examination of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chem- 
istry of this Department showed the following results: Solids, re- 
fruitometer, 66.74 per cent; nonsugar solids, 2.32 per cent; sucrose, 
Clerget, 58.6 per cent; reducing sugars as invert, total, 67.81 per 
cent; commercial glucose (factor 163), none; polarization direct 
(21.5° C), 58.1° V.; polarization invert (21.5° C), -19.2° V.; polar-' 
ization invert (87° C), 0.0; ash, 0.231 percent; lead precipitate (Win- 
ton number), 0.36; total sugar as sucrose, 64.42 per cent; capacity 
(1), 890 cc; (2), 875 cc; (3), 870 cc; average 3 cans, 878.3 cc; 
shortage, 68 cc, 7.2 per cent. Misbranding of the product was al- 
leged in the information for the reason that it was labeled as set 
forth above, which said statement on the label attached to the case
88S62"— No.. 2473—13
containing said product was false and misleading in that it pur- 
ported to state the contents of each of the cans in terms of measure, 
to wit, that each of the cans contained one quart of Scudder's 
Canada Syrup, whereas, in truth and in fact, each did not contain 
one quart of the product, but a much less ,amount, to wit, 93.8 per 
cent of a quart. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason 
that said statement on the label deceived and misled the purchaser 
into the belief that each of the cans contained one quart of Scudder's 
Canada Syrup, whereas, in truth and in fact, each did not contain 
one quart of said product, but a much less amount, to wit, 93.8 per 
cent thereof. Misbranding was alleged for the further reason that 
the aforesaid statement on the label purported to correctly state 
the contents of each of the cans in the case in terms of measure, 
to wit, that each of the cans contained one quart of Scudder's Canada 
Syrup, whereas, in truth and in fact, the contents of each of the cans 
was not correctly stated on the outside of the case for the reason 
that each of said cans did not contain one quart of the product, 
but a much less amount, to wit, 93.8 per cent of a quart thereof.
On February 18, 1913, the case having come on for trial before 
the court and a jury, after the submission of evidence and argu- 
ment by counsel the following charge was delivered to the jury by 
the court (A. B. Anderson, /.) :
GENTLEMEN OF THE JXTEY: This is a criminal case, and you are the judges of 
the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. You are the 
exclusive judges of all the facts. You are bound by the law as given to you by 
the court.
The government has charged that the defendant shipped in interstate com- 
merce a box or case labeled: " Two Doz. Purity Quarts Scudder's Canada Syrup, 
Imported only by Scudder Maple Syrup Company, Chicago, Illinois, Full 
Measure."
Now the government has established that that case was shipped in interstate 
commerce,—as it was, and that the case was labeled as set forth in the informa- 
tion. You are not bound by any expression of opinion, and you are the exclu- 
sive judges of the facts and the evidence, to-wit: of the testimony and credi- 
bility of witnesses. Now the government, subject to that, has shown here that 
the defendant did ship a case labeled as I have stated. The government also 
has shown, and there is no dispute about it, that 3 of these cans did not contain 
a full quart. In this case the defendant is presumed to be innocent,—and that 
presumption stays with the defendant throughout the trial,—and it is a perfect 
defense, until the government overcomes it beyond all reasonable doubt. 
Reasonable doubt is just what the word " reasonable " means, which is as the 
term implies, a reasonable doubt. It is not a captious or capricious doubt. It 
is not a doubt suggested by the ingenuity of counsel or by your own ingenuity, 
but it is as the term implies, a reasonable doubt, which is engendered by the 
evidence or the want of evidence. You, as reasonable men, understand what 
that mKans. You are the judges, as I said, of the weight of the evidence and 
the credibility of the witnesses. In determining what weight you shall give to 
any testimony of any witness, you have a right to take Ms knowledge, or want
2473
of knowledge, into consideration, about the thing about which he testifies,-his 
appearance and manner and bearing on the stand, and particularly his interest, 
or want of interest, in the result of the suit. These are the general principles 
by which you are to determine questions of this kind.
Now, gentlemen, the question for you to determine, is this,—whether or not 
this label was false, and of course that must mean it was specifically false. If 
the case or box contained 24 cans, each of which contained specifically a quart, 
then of course the defendant is not guilty. The evidence here shows cans will 
hold a quart.
Now, gentlemen of the jury the evidence of the defendant here is that this 
has to be put in here heated, and that it necessarily shrinks some. I instruct 
you that this is no defense. If they represent on the case,—as they did in this 
case, that 2 dozen purity quarts are contained therein, it means quarts of a 
gallon,—they represent by that label that there was in each of these cans a full 
quart, and that means at the time, of course, that it was shipped, and if it has 
to be put in hot, and after that shrinks, then the defendant ought to put in 
enough so there would still be a quart.
Now that this matter is before you, you will determine whether or not there 
has been a violation of this statute. You are simply to determine this one ques- 
tion,—whether or not these defendants did ship these in interstate commerce 
when it was misbranded. Now the fact that the government is on one side 
and a citizen on the other, has nothing to do with this case. The government, 
when it comes to a lawsuit, is just exactly in the same position as any other 
litigant. If you have any reasonable doubt as to whether or not there has been 
a specific violation here, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty.
If you find for the government, the form of your verdict, will be:
We, the Jury, find the defendant guilty, signed by your Foreman.
If you find for the defendant, the form of your verdict, will be:
We, the Jury, find the defendant Not Guilty, also signed by your Foreman, 
and return to the court.
Thereupon the jury retired and after due deliberation returned a 
verdict of guilty and the court imposed a fine of $50 and costs.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting /Secretary of Agriculture. 
WASHINGTON, D. C, April 12,1913.
2473
o