NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2493.
(Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U. S. v. C. F. Blaulte Tea & Coffee Co.   Tried to a jury.   Verdict not guilty.
MISBRANDING OF KAFEKA.
On January 30, 1912, the United States Attorney for the Eastern 
District of Missouri, 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 C. F. Blanke Tea & Coffee Co., 
a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., alleging shipment by said defendant, 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on February 6, 1911, from 
(he State of Missouri into the State of Virginia, and on December 
14, 1910, from the State of Missouri into the State of Louisiana, of 
o
t
quantities of a product called Blanke's Kafeka which was mis- 
branded. The product in both consignments was labeled: " One 
Pound Blanke's Kafeka. The original malted grain coffee. A God- 
send for the Sick and Convalescent. A Nourishing and Health Giv- 
ing Bread in Liquid Form. Manufactured by C. F. Blanke & Co. 
St. Louis, U. S. A. Blanke's Kafeka is the nearest approach to 
coffee ever put on the market. It has all the merits without any 
objectionable features. It makes a pleasant, healthful beverage, 
strengthens without stimulating, satisfies without shattering the 
nerves. Especially recommended for children. One Pound Blanke's 
Kafeka: The original Malted Grain Coffee. Nutritious, Palatable, 
Wholesome. A Health Food as well as a Table Beverage. Aids 
Digestion and makes Eich Healthy Blood. Manufactured by C. F. 
Blanke & Co. St. Louis, U. S. A. Directions:—Use a teaspoonful 
to a tablespoonful for every cup, according to strength desired. 
Bring the water to a boiling point, add the Kafeka and boil three 
or four minutes. If desired it may be strained. When served add 
cream and sugar to suit. We strongly advocate the use of cream in 
place of milk. Kafeka, unlike all other substitutes for coffee, can 
be made the French Drip method with very best results or you 
can make it any way that you have been making coffee."
89624°—No. 2493—13
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry 
of this Department from the first consignment showed that it con- 
sisted of a cereal product mixed with about 10 per cent of low-grade 
coffee, the latter containing considerable coffee chaff. Analysis of 
a sample from the second consignment showed it to contain some 
coffee tissue, estimated at 10 to 15 per cent, mixed with roasted 
cereals. Misbranding of the product in the first consignment was 
alleged in the information for the reason that the statements con- 
tained upon the package and label regarding the article and the 
ingredients and substances contained therein were false and mis- 
leading, and said product was labeled and branded so as to deceive 
and mislead the purchaser thereof and so as to lead a purchaser 
thereof to believe that the product was composed wholly of grains 
and cereals and was a substitute for coffee, whereas, in truth and 
in fact, the product contained and consisted of about 10 per cent of 
a low grade of coffee, including a considerable amount of coffee chaff 
and other refuse, and was not composed wholly of grains or cereals, 
but was a mixture of cereals, low-grade coffee, and coffee screenings. 
Misbranding of the product in the second consignment was alleged 
for the reason that the statements contained upon the package and 
label regarding the article and the ingredients and substances con- 
tained therein were false and misleading, and said product was 
labeled and branded so as to deceive and mislead the purchaser 
thereof and so as to lead a purchaser thereof to believe that the prod- 
uct was composed wholly of grains and cereals and was a substitute 
for coffee, whereas, in truth and in fact, it contained and consisted 
of about 10 to 15 per cent of coffee tissues and was not composed 
wholly of grains or cereals, but was a mixture of cereals and coffee 
tissues.
On January 10, 1913, the case having come on for trial before the 
court and a jury, a verdict of not guilty was rendered by the jury. 
The following charge was delivered to the jury by the court 
(Dyer, J.) :
GENTLEMEN OF THE JXJET : This inquiry, in my opinion, is limited to a very 
narrow compass.
What appears upon these boxes or cartons appears in this information, and 
the information charges in each count substantially the same thing. I will 
read from the information what appears upon these boxes or cartons:
" One Pound Blanke's Kafeka. The original malted grain coffee. A God- 
send for the Sick and Convalescent. A Nourishing and Health Giving Bread 
in Liquid Form.    Manufactured by O. F. Blanke & Co., St. Louis, U. S. A."
" Blanke's Kafeka is the nearest approach to coffee ever put on the market. 
It has all the merits without any objectionable features. It makes a pleasant, 
healthful beverage, strengthens without stimulating, satisfies without shatter- 
ing the nerves.   Especially recommended for children."
2403
" One Pound Blanke's Kafeka. The original malted grain coffee. Nutri- 
tious, Palatable, Wholesome. A Health Pood as well as a Table Beverage. 
Aids Digestion and makes Rich Healthy Blood. Manufactured by C. P. 
Blanke & Co., St. Louis, U. S. A."
Then follow the directions upon each as to how to use it.
The information then charges that the statements I have just read, and 
which were contained upon said package and label, were false and misleading, 
and that the " said product was then and there labeled and branded so as to 
deceive and mislead the purchaser thereof in this: that said product is so 
labeled as to lead the purchaser thereof to believe that said product was com- 
posed wholly of grains and cereals and was a substitute for coffee, whereas in 
truth and in fact said product contained and consisted of about ten per cent 
(10%) of a low grade of coffee, including a considerable amount of coffee chaff 
and other refuse, and was not composed wholly of grains or cereals, but was 
a mixture of cereals, low grade coffee and coffee screenings."
That charge brings this case, as 1 have said, into very narrow limits. I am 
not going to comment upon the testimony given by the witnesses in this case. 
It is sufficient to say that the Government has introduced witnesses who have 
testified that the contents of these packages contained coffee and caffein.
Upon the other hand, the defense shows by its own testimony that there is 
no coffee or caffein in these packages. It has introduced here as witnesses the 
President and Vice-President of this defendant Company. It has also intro- 
duced the miller, or the man who has charge of making this preparation.
You have heard the testimony of the Government's witnesses, saying that 
coffee is contained in these packages, and you have heard the testimony of 
the defendant's witnesses saying there is no coffee contained in the packages. 
If you find from the evidence in the case that, as charged in this information, 
coffee was used in this product, then it is misbranded within the meaning of 
the Food & Drugs Act. If you find upon the other hand, that there was no 
coffee and that coffee was not used in this product, then there is no misbranding 
of this article by the defendant Company.
So at last the case is narrowed down to the question, was there coffee used 
in this product, or was there not coffee used in this product? If there was, 
as I have said, then this is a Misbranding of the article contained in the 
packages. If there was no coffee in it, then it is "not a Misbranding of the 
article. In my judgment, that is all that is inquired into. You are not asked 
to go into the question of whether this is a good, bad or indifferent product. 
There is no charge of that kind. The charge is that in the branding of this 
article, the customer purchasing it would be misled or deceived by what ap- 
pears upon the box or carton; that is, as is charged in this information, the 
purchaser would think it was wholly of cereal and not of coffee, and that it was 
a substitute, the nearest to coffee, that could be made.
It is for you to say which side of this testimony you will take as being true. 
If the Government's witnesses are right, and you believe their testimony beyond 
any reasonable doubt in the matter, then your verdict should be a verdict of 
guilty against this corporation. If, upon the other hand, you believe the state- 
ments made by the defendant and its employees, then your verdict should be 
not guilty, under this information.
This information, gentlemen, contains two counts and is a criminal Informa- 
tion ; that is to say, it charges a specific offense which is and must be considered 
criminal in its character. The burden of proof in this case, as in all cases of 
like character, rests upon the Government, and that burden does not shift during 
2493
the entire trial. It is still upon the Government to prove to your satisfaction, 
beyond any reasonable doubt, what is alleged in this information to be true 
to-wit, that coffee was contained in these packages.
The defendant is presumed to be innocent and that presumption in this case, 
as in all cases of a criminal character, is to be maintained throughout the entire 
trial and until it is overcome by evidence that satisfies you beyond a reasonable 
doubt that the defendant is guilty. A reasonable doubt is such a doubt as would 
arise from all the testimony in the case, and such a doubt as would influence a 
man of ordinary business capacity in determining important issues.
If you are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt that this defendant sent out 
these packages with the label on it that has been read in evidence, when in 
truth and in fact the product contained coffee, then, as I have said, your verdict 
will be in favor of the Government and a verdict of guilty against the defendant 
If you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this is true, then it is 
your duty to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and return a verdict of 
not guilty.
That is all I can see in this case, gentlemen, and you may take the case, to- 
gether with the indictment. The clerk has prepared a form of verdict which 
you may sign. If you find the defendant not guilty, insert the word " not" 
before the word " guilty " as contained in this form.
B. T. GALLOWAY,
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C.} April 17,1913.
2493
o