Case ID: ohio-law-abs_3/html/0608-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "DONAHUE, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 835
    GOODWIN et v. UNITED STATES
    U. S. Appeals, 6th Circuit.
    No. 3983.
    Decided Nov. 5, 1924
    1235. VERDICT—Where misbranding is charged generally, and a motion to require a bill of particulars has not been filed, the general verdict must be sustained, there being substantial evidence that any one of the statements made is false and fraudulent.
    Attorneys—T. V. Maxedon for Goodwin et; Robert A. Kramer for U. S.; both of Cincinnati.
   DONAHUE, C. J.

This case was instituted in the District Court for the Western Division of the Southern District of Ohio by the United States against Idie C. Goodwin, charging him with libel under the Food and Drug Act. Goodwin bottled certain water, the labels on the bottles setting forth a long list of ailments for which the water was said to be beneficial, with “healing powers” and a “reliable remedy.”

The Government in its prosecution denied that the water was “capable of producing the therapeutic effects claimed in the statements upon and in the cartons as herein before set forth.” Judgment was in favor of the Government. Goodwin prosecuted error and the Circuit Court of Appeals held:

1. The denial of the Government that the water was capable of producing the effects claimed stated a case under the statute, and did not make the libel subject to demurrer or motion to quash.

2. Libel under the Food and Drug Act for condemnation of bottled water, for false statements on label of curative effects of the water, is sustained by sufficiently showing the false and fraudulent character of any of the claims.

3. While it appears that the drug elements of the mineral water are not completely extracted therefrom, nevertheless, the processes of separation are carried to such an extent that the water can no longer be used as a beverage, but only in small quantities, as a medicine.

4. For this reason the concentrated mineral water cannot be classed as a “food” but, on the contrary, comes fairly within the meaning of “drug” as used in the Pure Food Act and amendments thereto.

5. Upon the trial of the issue of fact joined by the libel charging the misbranding of mineral water and the answer of the intervener, expert evidence may be properly admitted.

6. Circuit Court of Appeals may not determine the weight of the evidence, or reverse on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, where the verdict of the jury is sustained by substantial evidence.

1. The Government having charged mis-branding in general terms, and no motion being-made to require it to file a bill of particulars, the general verdict must be sustained, there being substantial evidence that any one of the statements made on the label is false or fraudulent. Judgment affirmed.