Weeks v. United States, 245 U.S. 618 (1918)

Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 245 U.S. 605, click here.

Weeks v. United States

No. 109

Submitted January 2, 1918
Decided February 4, 1918
245 U.S. 618

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Syllabus

The Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, c. 3915, § 8, 34 Stat. 768, specifies and defines at least two kinds of "misbranding" -- one where the article bears a false or misleading label and the other where it is offered for sale under the distinctive name of another article.

In either case, it is not the misbranding that is made unlawful, but the shipment or delivery for shipment from one state to another of the misbranded article.

That this is a legitimate exertion of the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce is settled by previous decisions.

It is also settled that the negotiation of sales of goods which are in another state, for the purpose of introducing them into the state in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce.

Upon a charge of misbranding by offering for sale under the distinctive name of another article, held that the trial court properly received evidence that the shipment was made to fill an order obtained by the defendant’s agent by so misrepresenting the article, and properly declined to confine the jury’s attention to the label borne by the article when it was shipped.

Whether the court below was correct in viewing intent as not an element in such a case and so in holding that sanction by defendant of his agent’s misrepresentations was immaterial, this Court need not determine, since the trial court instructed the jury that such authority must appear beyond reasonable doubt, and, as the record neither shows that defendant objected to this mode of submitting the question nor purports to contain all the evidence, the verdict of guilty must be taken a determining conclusively that he sanctioned the representations.

224 F. 64 affirmed.

The case is stated in the opinion.