32980. Adulteration of canned salmon. T7. S. v. 1,000 Cases of Salmon. 
Tried to the court and a jury. Directed verdict for claimant. 
"Writ of error to Circuit Court of Appeals. Judgment of district 
court reversed and case remanded for new trial. Consent decree 
of condemnation and forfeiture. Product released under bond. 
(F. & D. No. 16248.    I. S. No. 18665-t.    S. No. C-3587.)
On May 1, 1922, 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 a libel praying the seizure 
and condemnation of 1,000 cases of salmon, remaining in the original unbroken 
packages at Chicago, Ill., alleging that the article had been shipped by the 
C. F. Buelow Co., from Seattle, Wash., March 4, 1922, and transported! from 
the State of Washington into the State of Illinois, and charging adulteration 
in violation of the food and drugs act.
Adulteration of the article was alleged in the libel for the reason that it 
consisted wholly or in part of a filthy, decomposed, and putrid animal sub- 
stance.
On June 29, 1923, John H. Leslie & Co., a copartnership, and Surkin & Port- 
noy, a copartnership, both of Chicago, Ill., having appeared as claimants for 
the property, the case came on for trial before the court and a jury. After 
the submission of evidence, a verdict for the claimant was returned by the 
jury by direction of the court. The ruling of the court was as follows (Car- 
penter, J.) :
" It must be perfectly apparent that the testimony of the Government 
chemists on cans of salmon that is not in court and that the jury has not seen, 
that the court knows nothing about, cannot compare with testimony in open 
court The offer to the Government witnesses for inspection and for cross- 
examination they have declined. On this kind of testimony, I can't even 
insult the jury by requiring them to go into the room to decide this case be- 
cause I know what they would do, no doubt about it. Let one of you gentle- 
men sign this as foreman."
The Government having perfected its appeal, the case came before the Cir- 
cuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on a writ of error on January 
22, 1924, and the judgment of the district court was reversed and the case 
remanded for a new trial.
On December 9, 1924, the said claimants, John H. Leslie & Co. and Surkin 
& Portnoy, having admitted the allegations of the libel and having consented 
to the entry of a decree, judgment of condemnation and forfeiture was entered), 
and it was ordered by the court that the product be released to the claimants,
upon payment of the costs of the proceedings and the execution of a bond in 
the sum of $3,000, in conformity with section 10 of the act, conditioned in part 
that it be reprocessed under the supervision of this department, and the bad 
portion destroyed.
W. M. JAKDINE, Secretary of Agriculture.