31114. Adulteration and misbranding of tartaric add.    V. S. v. American Cyana- 
mid & Chemical Corporation.    Judgment of guilty.    Fine, $1.    (F. & D.
No. 42737.    Sample No. 41668-E.)
The product involved in this action consisted of tartar emetic which had been 
shipped in response to an order for tartaric acid and which had been invoiced as 
tartaric acid.
On February 13, 1940, the United States attorney for the Eastern District, 
of New York filed an information against the American Cyanamid & Chemical 
Corporation, having a place of business at Brooklyn, N. Y., alleging shipment 
in violation of the Food and Drugs Act on or about October 20, 1938, from 
the State of New York into the State of Pennsylvania of a quantity of a product 
invoiced as tartaric acid which was adulterated and misbranded. The article 
was labeled in part: (Reverse of tag) "Tartaric Acid U. S. P. Powdered"; 
(stenciled on container) "Tartar Emetic."
It was alleged to be adulterated in that its strength and purity fell below 
the professed standard or quality under which it was sold, since it was in- 
voiced as "Tartaric Acid U. S. P.," a nonpoisonous substance; whereas it con- 
sisted of tartar emetic, a poisonous substance. It was alleged to be misbranded 
in that it consisted of tartar emetic, a poisonous substance, and was offered for 
sale and sold under the name of another article, namely, "Tartaric Acid U. S. P.," 
a nonpoisonous substance.
On March 25, 1940, the case having been submitted to the court without a 
jury on an agreed statement of facts, the court entered the following judgment:
INCH, Judge. "The criminal information herein for violation of the Food and 
Drug Act was duly filed February 13, 1940. At the trial the Government and 
defendant agreed on the facts. These have been duly stipulated and submitted 
in evidence. The only question remaining is one of law. It is clear that, at 
the most, this was merely a technical violation. It is agreed that it was due 
solely to the error of one of the shipping clerks in the employ of the defendant. 
Inasmuch as the defendant is responsible for the action of such clerk and the 
question of intention to violate the law is immaterial, and not an element of 
the offense, there seems to be no doubt but that a violation took place but it 
was one for which liability results solely because of the above plain and unusual 
mistake. I accordingly find the defendant guilty, but impose a nominal fine of 
$1.03."