NOTICE OF JUDGMENT NO. 2471.
Given pursuant to section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act.)
U. S. v. D. B. Scully Syrup Co.   Tried to a jury.   Verdict of not guilty by direction of court.
ALLEGED MISBRANDING OF SORGHUM.
On July 27, 1913, the United States Attorney for the Northern 
District of Illinois, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agricul- 
ture, filed in the District Court of the United States for said district 
an information against Daniel B. Scully and Maurice H. Scully, 
copartners, doing business as the D. B. Scully Syrup Co., Chicago, 
111., alleging the sale by said defendants on April 1, 1910, under a 
written guaranty given before the time of said sale and delivery, of 
a quantity of a product known as Loverin's Sorghum, which was 
alleged to have been misbranded in violation of the Food and Drugs 
Act.    The guaranty aforesaid was in words and figures as follows,
to wit:
Food Guaranty
The undersigned D. B. Scully Syrup Company of Chicago, state of Illinois, United 
States of America, does hereby warrant and guarantee unto Loverin & Browne Co., 
a corporation, having office at Chicago, Illinois, that any and all articles of food or 
drugs, as defined by the Act of Congress approved June 30, 1906, entitled "An Act 
for preventing the manufacture, sale or transportation of adulterated or misbranded 
or poisonous or deleterious foods, drugs, medicines and liquors, and for regulating 
traffic therein, and for other purposes," which the undersigned has sold since October 
1st, 1906, or shall at any time hereafter prepare, manufacture for, sell or deliver to 
said Loverin & Browne Co., will comply with all the provisions of said act of Congress 
and are not and shall not be in any manner adulterated or misbranded within the 
meaning of said Act.
It is expressly understood that this shall be a continuing guaranty until notice of 
revocation be given in writing and notice of acceptance of the guaranty is hereby 
waived.
Dated at Chicago this 31st day of December, 1906.
D B SCULLY SYRUP CO.    Seal 
M. H. SCULLY 
Seal
The information alleged that said guaranty had not been revoked 
at the time of said sale and delivery, but was then in full force and 
effect.
88863°—No. 2471—13
2
On April 2, 1910, and July 19, 1910, without having changed the 
product in any particular, save repacking, the purchaser thereof 
shipped quantities of the same from the State of Illinois into the 
Territory of New Mexico in violation of the Food and Drugs Act. 
The product was labeled: "1 Gal. Loverin's Sorghum Loverin & 
Browne Co., Chicago, Ill."
Analysis of samples of the product by the Bureau of Chemistry of 
this Department showed the following results:
Sample       Sample 
No. 1.        No. 2.
Solids (per cent) 
73. 3 77. 7
Nonsugar solids (per cent) 
10.1 6.9
Sucrose, Clerget (per cent) 
38. 7 40.1
Reducing sugars as invert (per cent) 
24. 5 30. 7
Ash (per cent) 
2. 6 3. 57
Measure (gallon) 
845       . 914
Measure of second sample (gallon) 

. 874
Shortage (per cent) 
15. 5 8.6
Misbranding of the product was alleged in the information for the 
reason that it was labeled as set forth above, and the statement in the - 
label was false and misleading, in that it purported to state the con- 
tents of each of the cans in terms of measure, to wit, that each of the 
cans contained one gallon of Loverin's sorghum, whereas, in truth 
and in fact, each of the cans did not contain one gallon of the product, 
but a much less amount, to wit, 0.845 of a gallon thereof.
On February 18, 1913, the case having come on for trial before the 
court and a jury, after the submission of evidence the following 
charge directing a verdict of not guilty was delivered to the jury by 
the court (A. B. Anderson, J.):
I might explain to you gentlemen here that this is an Act of Congress, and Con- 
gress has no right to legislate on this pure food question except so far as it affects 
interstate commerce. We all understand that. And, now, there isn't any showing 
here at all, passing by some other questions, that the Scully Syrup Company, defend- 
ant, had anything whatever to do with the shipment. The evidence showed that the 
Scully Syrup Company made this for Loverin & Browne Company and that Loverin 
& Browne Company shipped it, so that they have got the wrong defendant here. 
The government undertakes to claim that by reason of the statute which provides 
that the dealer shall be immune when the manufacturer guarantees to him that the 
article is not misbranded—that in that case the dealer is out, Loverin & Browne Com- 
pany, and that the other people are in. That does not relieve the government of the 
responsibility of proving some connection with the shipment by the Scully Syrup 
Company. And in the next place, the guarantee set forth is no guarantee at all. 
The guarantee is no guarantee at all under the statute. It isn't anything in the 
world but a promise that in the future—made six years ago—they will not violate 
the law.    Let the record show a verdict of not guilty.
B. T. GALLOWAY, 
Acting Secretary of Agriculture,
WASHINGTON, D. C, April 12, 1913.
2471
o