2866.?Alleged adulteration of milk.   U. S. v. William Elliott.   Tried to the court and a jury.
Verdict of not guilty by the jury.   (F. & D. No. 4122.  I. S. No. 1565-d.)
On July 15,1912, the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, acting?
upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District Court of the United?
States for said district an information against William Elliott, Central Village, Conn.,?
alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation of the Food and Drugs Act, on?
September 6,1911, from the State of Connecticut into the State of Rhode Island, of a?
quantity of milk which was alleged to have been adulterated. The can containing?
the product had a wooden plug marked "W. E. 5."
Bacteriological examination of a sample of said product by the Bureau of Chemistry?
of this Department showed the following results: 13,000,000 bacteria per cc, plain?
agar, 37? C, for 48 hours; 13,000,000 bacteria per cc, litmus lactose agar, 25? C, for?
48 hours; 8,000,000 acid organisms per cc; 1,000,000 gas-producing organisms per cc;?
100,000 streptococci; temperature at collection, 21? C.   Adulteration of the product
98	
BUBEATJ  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[February,
was alleged in the information for the reason that it consisted in part of a filthy, decom??
posed, and putrid animal or vegetable substance.
On July 23, 1912, the defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the information and?
thereafter filed his demurrer to the information and plea to the jurisdiction, both of?
which were overruled by the court on the ground that they were filed too late, as the?
defendant had entered his plea of not guilty when first arraigned.
On September 24, 1913, the case having come on for trial before the court and a?
jury, after the submission of evidence and argument by counsel, the following charge?
was delivered to the jury by the court:
MARTIN, Judge. Gentlemen of the Jury: The constitutional right of liberty is so?
sacred that every person coming into court charged with a crime; whether it be a?
felony or a misdemeanor, is presumed to be innocent until the evidence overcomes?
that presumption of innocence to a decree arising to the mental condition of the jury,?
whereby there shall be no reasonable doubt. By reasonable doubt we mean just?
what those words indicate; a doubt arising beyond reason that develops from the?
evidence?that grows out of the evidence; not beyond a conjecture of a doubt, but a?
reasonable doubt. This respondent, Mr. Elliott, is charged here with the violation of?
the Pure Food Act, so-called. Now a little analysis of the law may aid you somewhat,?
probably materially in disposing of this question. The law, as applied to this case,?
is, to use the language of the law?" that it shall be unlawful for any person to manu??
facture within the territory of the United States, any article of food or drug which is?
adulterated or misbranded." You observe the language;?adulterated or mis-?
branded?unlawfully to manufacture any article of food that is adulterated or mis-?
branded. It is also unlawful for any person to ship or deliver for shipment from one?
State or Territory to another, any such manufactured, adulterated or misbranded?
article of food. Now, that is the law and in order to convict, you must find, beyond a?
reasonable doubt that this man did adulterate. No claim that he manufactured.?
No claim but what this was milk that came from his dairy of cows. The claim is that?
he adulterated that milk and then, in the language of the law, "delivered it for ship??
ment into another State." Now, to sustain that you must find, beyond a reasonable?
doubt, both of those things; first, that he did adulterate and second, that he delivered?
it for shipment into another State and those two questions you must find beyond a?
reasonable doubt.
Now, you will naturally ask right off^ when you retire, what does "adulterate"?
mean; does it mean the accidental dropping of something into the milk or that some??
thing accidentally got into tho milk and thereby changed its quality? Is that what?
is meant by adulteration? Well, now, the law itself says?"if it consists in whole?
or in part of a filthy, decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance, or any?
portion of an animal unfit for food, whether manufactured or not, or if it isthe product?
of a diseased animal, or one that has died otherwise than by slaughter," it covers the?
meaning of "adulterated." Now you want to think of that pretty carefully; filthy,?
decomposed or putrid matter?putrid animal or vegetable substance. The law?
limits it right down to filthy, decomposed or putrid animal or vegetable substance.
Take the general scope of this Pure Food and Drug Act, which in my judgment is one?
of the most wholesome acts ever passed by Congress and it is the duty of the courts?
to see that it is enforced, was primarily driving at manufactured articles of drugs and?
food. Now the question is whether we have a case here that comes up to that point?
and we must keep within the law, and you will have to find from this evidence, beyond?
a reasonable doubt, that not only that milk was impure but that impurity consisted?
of a filthy or a decomposed or or a putrid animal or vegetable substance, in order to?
bring this man within the law. The law addresses itself to your common sense as to?
whether those things that were found in this milk show a state of facts that satisfy?
you, beyond a reasonable doubt, that those things were some one of these that I have?
enumerated and that this defendant, either through a purpose on his part or through?
carelessness?no claim of its being done on purpose, nobody claims that for it is con??
ceded here that he is a good, upright man, now that may be by carelessness and a?
criminal carelessness, that is for you to say, but if you do not find that this milk was?
adulterated with some of these things that I have now enumerated, that is the end of?
your inquiry and your verdict should be "Not guilty." If you do find that the im??
purities in that milk come within the definition that I have just read to you, then?
you should inquire as to whether or not the evidence satisfies you, beyond a reasonable?
doubt, that it was the defendant's carelessness that got that impurity into the milk,?
and you will find that in the evidence.
There are just two branches of evidence?one is as to just what the chemists found?
there and the other as to the care the defendant took, and if in considering those two
1914.]	SEKVICE AND EEGULATOKY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	
Suestions you have a reasonable doubt, then you are to find in behalf of the defendant,?1 not, then it is your duty to convict. So the case rests right there.?
And I want to say right here that no matter what the court may have said about?
the facts in this case as indicating to your mind what I think you eught to do, that is?
of no consequence; whether I think this man was guilty or not. You are not to guess?
as to what
 I think; you are to pass upon that and when I allude to the testimony, it is?
merely to illustrate the law and the question of the law; you take care of the facts.
Thereupon the jury retired and after due deliberation returned into Court with its?
verdict of not guilty.
B. T. GALLOWAY, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.?
WASHINGTON, D. C, February 9, 1914.