3411. (Supplement to Notice of Judgment 2859.) Adulteration of frozen eggs.?
IT. S. v. 13 Crates of Frozen Eggs; and Armour & Co., Claimant, v.?
U. S. Judgment of District Court, on appeal, ordering the con??
demnation, forfeiture, and destruction of the product, affirmed,?
Writ of error dismissed. (F. & D. No. 4012. I. S. No. 18747-d. S. No.?
1390.)
On December 11, 1913, Armour & Co., New York, N. Y., claimants of 13 crates?
of frozen eggs, which had been condemned and forfeited in the United States?
District Court for the Southern District of New York, after a trial by jury?
resulting favorably to the Government, filed their assignments of error and an?
appeal was allowed to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sec??
ond Circuit. On April 6, 1914, said claimants filed additional assignments of?
error and a writ of error was allowed. On June 3, 1914, the case having come?
up for hearing on said appeal and writ of error, the judgment of the District?
Court condemning and forfeiting the product and ordering its destruction was?
affirmed and the writ of error dismissed, as will more fully appear from the?
following opinions by the said Circuit Court of Appeals before Coxe and?
Richards, circuit judges, and Mayer, district judge (Coxe, J.) :
The question involved in this controversy is simply this?whether decayed?
frozen eggs taken from the shell and mixed together are within the prohibition?
of the act of Congress which prohibits the transportation from one State to?
another of any adulterated article of food.
We are clearly of the opinion that they are and that the question of intent?
of either the shipper or the consignee has nothing to do with the question. The?
law could not be enforced if the Government is compelled in the case of?
articles clearly prohibited from interstate commerce to establish the wrongful?
intent of the parties. It is enough that such articles are prohibited. All that?
it is necessary for the Government to show is that an adulterated article of?
food has been transported in interstate commerce and it has amply shown this?
in the present case. Judge Ray has found the facts and correctly stated the?
principles of law applicable.
The judgment is affirmed.
In view of our decision in the case of the United States v. Thirteen Crates?
of Frozen Eggs, decided at this term, it is hardly to be expected that a con??
clusion in favor of the plaintiff in error would be reached herein even if we
640	
BUREAU  OF CHEMISTRY.	
[August. 1914.
were permitted to review the questions presented at the argument and in the?
briefs.   But we are not permitted to review these questions because there is no?
bill of exceptions.   None of the questions discussed is properly before us.?
The writ of error is dismissed.
On June 10,1914, the mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeals was filed in the?
District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, and?
on June 10, 1914, a writ for the destruction of the property was issued.
D. F. HOUSTON, Secretary of Agriculture.
WASHINGTON, D. C, September 28, 191?.