4842. Misbranding1 of Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy. TJ. S. v. Abbott?
Bros. Co., a corporation. Tried, to tbe court and a jury. Verdict?
of guilty.    Fine, $200 and costs.    (F. & D. No. 6190.    I. S. No. 7945>-e.)
On November 4, 1915, the United States attorney for the Northern District of?
Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the District?
Court of the United States for said district an information against the Abbott?
Bros. Co., a corporation, Chicago, 111., alleging shipment by said company, in?
violation of the Food and Drugs Act, as amended, on or about January 31, 1913,?
from the State of Illinois into the State of Ohio, of a quantity of "Abbott Bros.?
Rheumatic Remedy," which was misbranded. The article was labeled: (On?
carton) "New Style Package, Dec. 1912. Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy?
Contains 24? Pure Grain Alcohol To Preserve Its Vegetable Ingredients. For?
Rheumatism of every form and stage, including Inflammatory, Muscular, Articu??
lar, Sciatica, Gout, Lumbago, Acute, Chronic, etc., Constipation, Inactive or?
Torpid Liver, Kidney and Bladder Troubles, Backache, Shifting Pains, Sharp-?
Shooting or Dull Aches and Pains in any part of the body, Swellings, Inflam??
mation, Soreness and Stiffness in the Joints and Muscles, Uric Acid and all?
deep-seated Blood Disorders Inherited or Contracted, Scrofula, Eczema, and for?
improving the general health. Price One Dollar Contains no Opiates or Nar??
cotics Guaranteed by Abbott Bros. Co., under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30,?
1906. Serial No. 441. Manufactured Only by Abbott Bros. Company 711 South?
Dearborn Street Chicago, 111., U. S. A." (On back of carton) "Abbott Brothers'?
Rheumatic Remedy The New One Dollar Size Adopted March 1st, 1902.?
Established 1888. Put up only by Abbott Bros. Co., Chicago, 111." (On sides of?
carton) " Symptoms of Rheumatism. Shifting pains, tenderness, stiffness, sore??
ness and inflammation of the muscles. Pain increased by bringing muscles into?
action. Inflammation of the fibrous tissues and distress in the region of the?
heart. Joints swollen, stiff, painful, feveiish and sore to the touch. Lacerating?
sciatic pains in thighs and legs. Intense burning or gnawing pain in joints.?
Pains and aches in the bones. Soreness and sharp pains in the back, sharp shoot??
ing or piercing pains in different parts of the body. Numbness and needle-like?
pricking sensation. Pains in the kidneys and bladder. Pain and stiffness in?
neck and shoulders. In acute rheumatism the fever is more pronounced. For?
all forms of rheumatism and all Uric Acid Diathesis, former sufferers scattered?
all over the country recommend Abbott Brothers' Rheumatic Remedy. A guar??
antee. We positively guarantee that Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy Does not?
contain any Salicylic Acid, Mercury, Morphine, Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, Alpha?
or Beta Eucaine, Chloroform, Cannabis Indica, Chloral Hydrate or Acetanilide?
or any derivative or preparation of any such substance contained therein.?
Abbott Bros. Co. Chicago, 111. Abbott Brothers' Rheumatic Remedy." (On top?
flap) " Guaranteed by Abbott Bros. Co., under the Food and Drugs Act, June 30,?
1906. Sesial Number 441 Abbott Bros. Co., Chicago, 111." (On bottle) "New?
Label Adopted April 25th, 1911. Abbott Brothers Rheumatic Remedy Contains?
24 Per Cent Alcohol To Dissolve and Preserve Ingredients For all Uric Acid?
Troubles, Eczema, Kidney and Bladder Disorders, Backache, Stiff and Inflamed?
Joints, Aching Muscles, Bone Pains, Neuralgia, Gout, Sciatica, Lumbago, Inflam??
matory, Muscular, Articular, Acute, Chronic and all other forms of Rheumatism.?
Shake Bottle Before Using Dose: For Adults: One small teaspoonful in glass?
of water either one half hour before meals or three hours after each meal. If it?
acts too freely on the bowels, reduce dose one-half. Drink at least three glasses?
of water between meals. For Children: From 5 drops to one-half teaspoonful,?
according to age. It is very important that bowels move freely three times or?
at least twice, daily. If a laxative is needed take Smead's Regulator Tablets.?
For weak stomach, indigestion, etc., take Smead's Dyspepsia Tablets.    See page
448	
BUBEAIX  OF  CHEMISTBT.	
[Supplement 27,
SO of book wrapped around bottle. Guaranteed by Abbott Bros. Co., under the?
Food and Drugs Act, June 30, 1906 Serial No. 441. Price $1.00 Six Bottles?
$5.00 None genuine without this signature Abbott Bros. Prepared Only by?
Abbott Bros. Company 711 So. Dearborn St., Chicago, 111., TJ. S. A." (Blown in?
bottle) "Rheumatic Remedy Abbott Bros. Abbott Bros. Chicago Rheumatic?
Remedy Est. 1888." The booklet accompanying the article contained, among?
other things, the following: "Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy Guaranteed to?
contain no opiates Guaranteed by Abbott Bros. Co. Under the Food and Drugs?
Act, June 30, 1906. Serial Number 441 For Rheumatism, Gout, Neuralgia,?
Sciatica, Lumbago, Backache, Kidney and Liver Troubles, Shifting Pains and?
all Manifestations of Uric Acid Diathesis, Eczema, Etc. Designed to give?
prompt relief and restore health. Abbott Bros. Co. 711 S. Dearborn St. Chi??
cago, 111." " Cured of Sciatica Six Years Ago. Mr. Herman C Beckman, who?
is connected with the DeLaval Separator Company, Canal and Randolph streets,?
Chicago, residence Berwyn, 111., writes: ' Having been cured of rheumatism?
from which I suffered severely I desire to assist as much as possible in the?
relief of others. I therefore take pleasure in recommending Abbott Bros.'?
Rheumatic Remedy which cured me of Sciatica six years ago." " Mr. Arthur?
Peterson, 1422 Concord St., Keokuk, la., writes: ' I have been to Hot Springs?
twice on account of gonorrheal rheumatism. I was helped for a little while?
when there, but soon after leaving the springs the trouble would come right back?
on me again. I had the rheumatism four years and had to have a stick to help?
me along. A friend of mine who had also taken the baths at the Government?
Bath House told me Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy had cured him in fourteen?
days. I would not buy it because I had taken so much treatment that I did?
not think there was anything in this world that could help me. When my friend?
saw that I would not buy Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy, he bought a bottle?
for me. I was then laid up in bed, but after I had taken half of the bottle I?
got out of bed and could walk as well as ever. Hot Springs could not cure me,?
but Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy did it for me. I am well known here and?
our people know I could not walk without a stick. After I got cured they all?
wanted to know what in the world cured me.'" " Death of Child Averted.?
Mrs. W. S. Edwards, 1122 North Twenty-first St., Birmingham, Ala., writes:?
' If my friends could not testify to what I say regarding my child's case, I would?
not dare say it, because I could not expect anybody to believe it. My daughter?
Mattie, when a little miss 13 years of age, was down with acute inflammatory?
rheumatism for four months. I hope I may never again see anyone suffer as?
she did. You could hear her scream a block. She was in a drawn position and?
was not able to move or straighten. I dared not raise her head off her pillow?
on account of heart failure. Her doctor said she was liable to pass away at?
any moment. She was bedfast four months and I believe she would have died?
but for Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy. At the time I began this treatment?
I hesitated, as her heart was so affected I was afraid to take the heart stimu??
lants from her. She was so weak I only gave her four drops to the dose. It?
acted on her kidneys and liver as nothing had ever done before. In three days?
she wanted to sit up in bed, began to eat and then improved every day. She had?
not taken all of two bottles of Abbott JSros.' Rheumatic Remedy when she was?
entirely cured. She is now 18 years of age, weighs 127 pounds, and is in fine?
health.*' " Mr. Chas. E. Piper, Supreme .Scribe of the Royal League, whose?
offices are in the Masonic Temple, Chicago, residence at Berwyn, 111., writes:?
It gives me great pleasure to inform you that your Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic?
Remedy has cured my wife's mother, Mrs. Gregory, of Rheumatoid Arthritis.?
She had been a great sufferer for many years and her hands seemed hopelessly?
crippled.   Her finger joints were stiff, badly swollen, and her fingers were drawn
W.J. 4801-4850.]  SERVICE  AFB REGULATORY AK^OTJlsrCEMENTS.	449
shapeless. She had great difficulty in using her hands and there seemed no hope?
of her ever regaining their usefulness. Your Abbott Bros.' Rheumatie Remedy?
had been very highly recommended to me several times and upon my request?
mother finally decided to try it. A few bottles of it relieved her pain, but she?
took about six or seven bottles before much improvement was noticeable in her?
joints. They improved gradually and we were delighted with such favorable?
results. At the end of four months she had entirely recovered. She rejoices?
over the regaining the use of her hands and never tires of praising your Abbott?
Bros/ Rheumatic Remedy. The cost of Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy is?
small and the time required to take it is short. There are many instances in?
which $5.00 spent for six bottles was the total cost of lasting relief." " Twelve?
Years of Suffering Ended. Mr. W. A. Dewis, of the Terre Haute (Ind.) Fire?
Department, Fourth and Locust Sts., writes: I was as helpless as an infant?
when my wife got Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy for me. My limbs were?
frightfully swollen and I was suffering more than tongue can tell with inflam??
matory rheumatism. I had been on my back almost four months and had been?
afflicted with the disease twelve years. The doctor couldn't ease the pains for?
one minute. He kept my limbs wrapped with cotton and soaked it with lini??
ment, but even that didn't do me any good. I don't believe I could have recov??
ered from the attack had it not been for Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy. It?
eased the pains like magic, cured my rheumatism, and that was the end of it.?
I have been a well man for the past ten years. This proves that Abbott Bros.'?
Rheumatic Remedy drove the rheumatism out of my system, root and branch*?
It has also cured a great many others here, including my sister. She had been?
helpless a long time, and her limbs were drawn out of shape by the terrible?
disease." "Mr. H. L. Strenning, 5535 Gladys Ave., Chicago, 111., writes: I was?
afflicted with rheumatism and a serious kidney trouble. The rheumatism?
started with occasional pains in my shoulders and back. It gradually spread all?
over my body, and then my kidneys got in bad shape. I tried many kidney?
medicines and doctor after doctor, but got worse. I suffered nameless torture?
for ten years and was told my case was hopelessly incurable. I became almost?
helpless, and when my doctor said I had Bright's Disease and couldn't be cured,?
I gave up in despair. Finally a friend told me about Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic?
Remedy and got me to try it. It soon eased the horrible pain and helped my?
kidneys wonderfully. Now my kidneys are in fine condition and my rheumatism?
is gone. Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy did the work. I am a living adver??
tisement for this godsend to suffering humanity. I would advise every mail,?
woman and child to take Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy if they want to be?
cured of rheumatism or kidney misery/"
Analysis of a sample of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of this de??
partment showed the following results :
Alcohol (per cent)?
23.2
Potassium iodid  (grains per fluid dram)?
    5.0
Essentially a hydroalcoholic solution of potassium iodid and?
extracts of drugs such as sarsaparilla and taraxacum.?
Misbranding of the article was alleged in the information for the .reason that?
the following statements regarding the therapeutic or curative effects thereof?
appearing on the label aforesaid, to wit (on carton), "Abbott Bros. Rheumatic?
Remedy * * * For Rheumatism of every form and Stage, including In??
flammatory, * * * Sciatica * * * Acute, * * * and all Uric Acid?
Diathesis." (On label) "Abbott .Brothers Rheumatic Remedy * * * for?
all Uric Acid Troubles * * * Eezema, * * * Sciatica, * * * In??
flammatory,    *    *    *   Acute,    *    *    *    and all other forms of Rheumatism,"
450	
BUBEAU   OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 27.
and included in the booklet aforesaid, to wit, "Abbott Bros. Rheumatic Remedy
*?* * por * * * aii manifestations of Uric Acid Diathesis * * *.?
Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy * * * cured me of Sciatica * * *?
gonorrheal rheumatism * * * Hot Springs could not cure me, but Abbott?
Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy did it for me.    *    *    *    Death of Child averted.
*?* * acute inflammatory rheumatism * * * I believe she would have?
died bur for Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy. * * * she was entirely?
cured. * * * Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy * * * cured * * *?
Rheumatoid Arthritis. * * * Inflammatory rheumatism * * * Abbott?
Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy. It eased the pains like magic, cured my rheuma??
tism, and that was the end of it. * * * Doctor said I had Bright's Disease?
and couldn't be cured, * * * Abbott Bros.' Rheumatic Remedy * * *?
soon eased the horrible pain and helped my kidneys wonderfully. Now my?
kidneys are in fine condition * * *," were false and fraudulent in that the?
same were applied to the article knowingly and in reckless and wanton disre??
gard of their truth or falsity, so as to represent falsely and fraudulently to the?
purchasers thereof and create in the minds of purchasers thereof the impres??
sion and belief that it was, in whole or in part, composed of or contained in??
gredients or medicinal agents effective, among other things, as a remedy for?
rheumatism of every form and stage, for inflammatory rheumatism, for sci??
atica, for acute rheumatism, for all uric-acid diathesis, for all uric-acid?
troubles, and for eczema, and as a cure for sciatica, gonorrheal rheumatism,?
acute inflammatory rheumatism, rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory rheuma??
tism, and Bright's disease, when, in truth and in fact, it was not, in whole or in?
part, composed of and did not contain such ingredients or medicinal agents.
On March 1, 1916, the case having come on for trial before the court and a?
jury, after the submission of evidence and arguments by counsel, the following?
charge was delivered to the jury on March 4, 1916, by the court (Ander??
son, D. J.) :
Gentlemen of the jury, this is a criminal case, and in this case you are the?
judges of the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the?
witnesses. It is your exclusive province to determine what the facts are, but?
you are bound by the law as it is given to you by the court. During the course?
of the trial defendants' counsel objected to some statements made by the court?
in colloquy between court and counsel, or in ruling upon some evidence as to?
questions of fact. You will understand, gentlemen of the jury, that you are not?
bound by any statement that the court may make as to the facts in this case,?
but, as I have stated, you are the exclusive judges of the facts. If in the course?
of these instructions the court should make any statement of fact, that state??
ment is not made, will not be made for the purpose of binding your judgments,?
controlling your minds, but only for the purpose of assisting and aiding you in?
coming to a correct conclusion upon the facts.
Now, Congress has forbidden the transportation of drugs in interstate com??
merce which are misbranded. and it is defined in the law which prohibits trans??
portation, what that misbranding shall consist in. If a person transports in in??
terstate commerce an article which is misbranded, as I shall define to you, the?
law says he or, in this case it, the defendant in this case being a corporation,?
shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not to exceed $200. Now,?
this statute says that it shall be an offense, a misdemeanor, to ship in inter-?
State commerce any drug which is misbranded, it says for the purpose of this?
act an article shall be deemed to be misbranded in case of drugs if its package?
or label shall bear or contain any statement, design, or device regarding the?
curative or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or sub??
stances contained therein, which is false and fraudulent. The word " thera??
peutic " means specifically the same as the word " curative." " Therapeutic "?
means pertaining to the healing or curative therein. You will understand it?
best in determining the questions here, the word " therapeutic " practically?
means the same as " curative." This statement, as you will see in order to sub??
ject the defendant to a successful prosecution, should be false and fraudulent.?
The false statement needs no definition.    A false statement is a statement
N. J. 4801-4850.]   SERVICE AND REGULATORY AN"3STOIJN'CEMENTS.	451
which is not true. A fraudulent statement is a statement which is not true and?
which is made for the purpose of misleading some one?made for the purpose of?
gaining some advantage. Now, in this case the charge is made by an informa??
tion by the district attorney; it is in one count. It charges that the defendant,?
a corporation, did on a certain day in November, 1913, I believe?January,?
1913?the defendant shipped in interstate commerce 12 dozen, I believe it was,?
of bottles of a certain article, describing it. It sets forth that on the label and?
within the package in which this article was packed there were certain state??
ments made with regard to the curative and therapeutic effects of this so-called?
medicine. It is not necessary for me to read to you this information, as yon?
will be allowed to take it with you to the jury room and can read it there, nor?
is it necessary for me now to read over to you the statements which are relied?
upon by the Government to make up this case?they are contained in the infor??
mation and are upon the cartons and the bottle, which will go out with you if?
you desire, and you can then see just what they are.
Now, this information proceeds after setting out the fact that this shipment?
was made and that the carton and bottle, or the package contained in it, and the?
bottle contained on it certain labels, certain statements in the label and in the?
package avers that these statements were false and misleading, in this false and?
fraudulent in this that the same were applied to said article knowingly and in?
reckless and in wanton disregard of truth or falsity so as to represent falsely?
and fraudulently to the purchasers thereof and create in the minds of pur??
chasers thereof an impression and belief that it was in whole or in part com??
posed of or contained ingredients or medicinal agents effective among other?
things as a remedy for rheumatism of every form and stage, and effective as a?
remedy for inflammatory rheumatism and effective as a remedy for sciatica, and?
effective as a remedy for acute rheumatism, and effective as a remedy for all?
uric-acid diathesis, and effective as a remedy for all uric-acid troubles, and?
effective as a remedy for eczema, when, in truth and in fact, said article was not,?
in whole or in part, composed of, and did not contain, ingredients or medicinal?
agents effective, among other things, as a remedy for rheumatism of every form?
or stage; or effective as a remedy for inflammatory rheumatism; or effective as?
a remedy for sciatica; or effective as a remedy for acute rheumatism; or effec??
tive as a remedy for all uric-acid diathesis; or effective as a remedy for all uric-?
acid troubles; or effective as a remedy for eczema.
Now, to these things there has been entered a plea of not guilty, and that?
makes the issue which you are to try; and upon that issue before the Govern??
ment can ask a verdict at your hands it must establish all the material aver??
ments of the information beyond all reasonable doubt. There has been filed in?
this case a stipulation which relieves you of determining some of the facts put in?
issue by this plea. It has been admitted here before you that the shipment was?
made as averred of the articles as averred in interstate commerce at the time?
and in the place averred in the information so that with that stipulation in the?
record it leaves for you to determine simply these two questions:
1.?Was there any statement within this package, or upon the label attached?
to this article, which was false; and
2.?Was that statement, was such statement, if false, fraudulent?
If you find that the statement was false and fraudulent both, then your ver??
dict should, of course, be guilty. If you should find that the statement was not?
false, then you need go no further, because it must be false and fraudulent. If?
you determine that the statement or any statement within this package or on?
this label is false, then you will proceed to consider whether or not it was?
fraudulent.
Now, you will notice that the statute does not require or provide that in order?
to make a defendant amenable to its provisions that every statement made in.?
the label or in its packing, that its package or on the label shall be false or?
fraudulent, if its package or label shall bear or contain any statement regarding?
the curative or therapeutic effect of such article or any of the ingredients or?
substances contained therein, which is false and fraudulent, it shall be mis-?
branbled within the meaning of this act.
So you will proceed to determine, gentlemen of the jury, first, whether or not?
the statements which are on the label and contained in the packages which were?
shipped, as the stipulation shows, were false, and if you determine that they?
were false, then you will proceed to determine whether they were fraudulently?
named; that is, made for the purpose of gaining some advantage, monetary or?
otherwise?in this case, of course, money.
452	
BUREAU  OF  CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement 27.
In a criminal case a defendant is presumed to be innocent until he is proven?
guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, and this presumption of innocence remains?
with him throughout the trial; with it throughout the trial in this, case, and?
before the Government can ask the jury to return a verdict of guilty, it must?
remove that reasonable doubt and overcome that presumption of innocence by?
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt, gentlemen of the jury,?
is what the term implies. It means a doubt for which a reason can be given.?
It is not a speculative or captious doubt, it is not a doubt conjured up by your?
own ingenuity or by the ingenuity of counsel, but it is a reasonable, substantial?
misgiving generated by the evidence or the want of it. As I have said, you are?
the judges of the evidence, the weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the?
witnesses. In determining what weight you shall give to the testimony of any?
witness you should take into consideration his manner, bearing upon the witness?
stand, his knowledge or want of knowledge of the things about which he testi??
fies, his intelligence or his want of intelligence, and his interest or his want of?
interest in the result of the suit. Many of the witnesses who have testified?
here are what are known in law as expert witnesses?because all men can not?
know about all things, and because some men by studied examination learn?
about things which the average man does not know, it is permissible for persons?
who are schooled in certain matters and branches of learning to state their?
conclusions and express their opinions for the guidance and assistance of juries?
in investigations of fact. Expert evidence is often spoken of as opinion evi??
dence, and it is opinion evidence. When a man has devoted years of study to?
a science or a branch of learning, and has become proficient in that branch, it is?
of assistance to juries and to average men to have their opinions upon certain?
questions of fact about which the witness is informed and about which the?
jurors ordinarily are not informed. Now, when you come to determine what?
weight you will give to the testimony of an expert witness, you will apply the?
same rules that you will apply to any other witness so far as they are appli??
cable. In other words, you will inquire what interest, if any, the witness has?
in testifying in the case, what his knowledge or opportunities are for knowing?
the things about which he testifies, what his opportunities and qualifications?
are for expressing the things which he is allowed to express upon the witness?
stand, and when you come to consider the testimony of what are not properly?
considered expert witnesses, but non-expert witnesses and average men. The?
man who follows his trade of blacksmith, barber, or farmer, or lawyer, for that?
matter, when it comes to medicine and he states upon the witness stand that?
he had a certain disease and that he took a certain remedy, and that it cured?
him, in determining what weight you will give to his testimony you will con??
sider what knowledge he has upon the subject, what he knows, what particular?
investigation or exoerience?investigation he has made or experience he has?
had which will enable him to -say to you that he had a particular disease or?
what he knows about medicine or the curative effects of medicine whereby he?
can state to you that a certain thing that he took effected a certain remedy;?
and when you are to determine whether or not this medicine will or will not?
do things wrhich are claimed for it, and you are weighing the testimony on the?
one side of experienced and learned men who have given their lives to the?
study of this question, giving consideration to their testimony in determining?
what weight you will give to it when you come to considering it to the testi??
mony of witnesses who have never studied such subjects and have had no?
opportunity to become acquainted with such subjects, you will then decide what?
weight you will give to the opinions which they express as to what afflictions?
they were suffering from and as to what effect, if any, the medicine which they?
took had upon those afflictions.
You will also understand, gentlemen of the jury, in our system of juris??
prudence the unsworn testimony?statement of a third party?is no evi??
dence, and you will not give weight to the statements made by many witnesses?
upon the stand, that Dr. So-and-so said he had rheumatism. Dr. So-and-so?
is not here upon the witness stand, and that is the unsworn statement of a?
third party and is hearsay evidence and is not regarded as of weight in a?
court like this.
Now, you will take this case, gentlemen of the jury, weigh the evidence?
in the light of the instructions which I have given to you. If you after having?
considered this evidence, weighed and compared it in the light of the instruc??
tions which I have given to you, have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of?
this defendant, it is your duty to return a verdict of not guilty. But, if?
upon full consideration you determine that the Government has established
M. J- 4801-4850.]  SERVICE AND BEGUJLATOBY ANNOUNCEMENTS.	453
the averments of the information beyond a reasonable doubt as defined to?
,you, it is your duty to return a verdict of guilty. A good deal of evidence lias?
been allowed to go before you upon the question of good faith?ordinarily what?
somebody said to the defendant or what the defendant said to somebody else?
is not evidence, Taut where there comes a question in the case as to whether?
or not a defendant, and in this case the defendant's officers have acted in?
good faith, then the information that has come to him, whether it be reli??
able or not and which he claims to have acted upon becomes pertinent for?
the jury to consider. Now, the president of this defendant has taken the wit??
ness stand and testified as to the various persons who have told him that?
they have taken his medicines and of the curative effects it has had, and that?
evidence has been allowed to go to you, that bearing upon the question whether?
he honestly believed that this medicine could do the things which are claimed?
for it. In determining, gentlemen of the jury, the question of the good faith?
of the defendants you will take into consideration the fact that the president?
of this organization, the only officer who has appeared here and testified here?
for it, who himself says he originated the manufacture of this thing and?
has superintended it throughout the course of this business?he himself says?
that he is neither a physician nor a chemist, that he has never studied medicine?
nor the practice of it, that he has never studied chemistry nor the science of?
chemistry, and when you are asked to find that he acted in good faith in selling?
to persons who supposed themselves to be afflicted with certain diseases, this?
so-called remedy, you will take into consideration the fact that he himself ad??
mits that he is neither a physician n,or a chemist, and bear those things in mind,?
as well as the other circumstances in the case, determine whether or not if?
you find that these statements were not true they were made either knowing?
them to be untrue or with such a reckless disregard of the truth as to amount?
to fraud. You will have nothing to do with the punishment in this case if you?
find the defendant guilty. If you find the defendant guilty the duty of inflicting?
the punishment which can not be anything but a fine not to exceed $200, is im??
posed upon the court. You have nothing to do except to determine the simple?
question whether or not the defendant is or is not guilty. Forms of verdict?
will be provided to you. If you find that the defendant is guilty the form of?
your verdict will be: We, the jury, find the defendant guilty as charged. If?
you find the defendant not guilty the form of your verdict will be: We, the?
jury, find the defendant not guilty as charged in the information. The verdict?
is signed by all the jurors.
THE COURT. Any suggestion?
Mr. ANDEESON. If your honor please, I do not think the fact as to what con??
stitutes fraud was brought out sufficiently. The court instructed the jury as?
I understood it, that fraud is where the proposition was false and was put out?
to mislead the public.
The COURT. Knowingly; I intended to use that word.
Mr. ANDEESON. And, further, the proposition as the charge now stands, I?
believe that the jury are instructed to disregarded all statements as to what?
physicians may have told the witnesses, although they told that to Mr. Abbott,?
I think.
THE COURT. Except as bearing upon the question of good faith.
Mr. DICKINSON. Your honor, in stating the charge made no reference to state??
ment in the pamphlet.
THE COURT. I said statement on the label; the charge is specific. It is so?
understood, gentlemen of the jury, the statement in the package or on the?
label are to be considered by you statements in the package as well as on the?
label.
You have no exceptions?
Mr. ANDEESON. None further than I have stated and which you corrected.
The jury thereupon retired, and, after due deliberation, returned into court?
with a verdict of guilty, and the court imposed a fine of $200 and costs.
CARL VROOMAN,?
Acting Secretary of Agriculture.
454	
BUREAU   OF   CHEMISTRY.	
[Supplement27.