The San Francisco call., 1897-03-16

rest, fixing their bonds at $500.
Another venire of ten was issued, ana
the other two jurors were soon accepted.
The twelve jurors who tried the case were:
s. A. Barr, George w. Wright. W. Jacobs,
III. Davis, Joseph Cohn, E Douglass, ii.
Franzen, w. A. Coffee, w. r. Eaton,
Charles Baddock. Hugh Mccormick and
r. Levin.
Prosecuting Attorney Spinetti opened
the case by reading the complaint and as
serting that the allegations in the COM
plant would be proved to the satisfaction
Of the jury.
Attorney Campbell moved for a dismiss
sal on the ground that the com mplaint did
not state that raspberry syrup was an arti-
Gle of food or drink for man. as required
by the statute, and on the ground that the
article sold was not iood, but drink or
drug.
Assistant District Attorney Dunno re-
covering the same ground as in the argu-
ments on the demurrers, and the Judge
denied the motion.
The first witness called was ]. Josephs,
salesman fer he defendant. He had no
recollection of selling bottle OF raspberry
syrup shown him to Thomas S. Taylor,
deputy food inspector, and he failed TO
identify Taylor. He would not swear he
did not oell 1t TO Taylor.
Deputy Food Inspector Taylor testified
that he purchased the bottle from Jo-
sephs in Cline's store on January 81, pay
ing 40 cents for it. He took it to the
Board Of Health Office and then it was
sent to Professor Wenzeli for analysis.
Professor Wenzell, analytical chemist
for the Board of Health. testified that he
first saw the bottle on January 81. He
made q chemical analysis of its contents,
which he found consisted of water, cane
sugar, glucose and fuch sine or aniline
dye. There was no trace whatever. OF
raspberry.
us there anything deleterious or in
urious to health in cane sugar?" asked
Attorney Campbell.
Dunno objected and long argument
followed. He contended that the aues-
ton OF whether the article was or was not
injurious to health did not figure in the
case at all. That question arose under
the mixing" clause of the act but here
the defendant was charged with selling
for raspberry syrup what was not rasp-
berry syrup, which was statutory adu-
lcralion. He must do business IN the
truth and sell raspberry syrup.
Camp bell replied, alleging that the de-
fendant was not charged with selling an
imitation, but a so-cailed compound of
raspberry syrup.
The Judge sustained the objection.
Professor WenZell, in further cross-ex-
animation, said there was nothing known
in chemical science as compound rasp-
berry syrup, The analysis showed 26 1-5
water and 73 4-5 solids. 1t contained no
acid which raspberry syrup should con-
tain. Glucose was to be found in the Juice
of fruits and in honey.
'Did you find anything deleterious in
the sampler"
Objected to and objection sustained.
Witness said he knew raspberry syrup
hon ho il The c0ptapfq of b. hot
tie analysed was not raspberry syrup. He
Lad made raspberry syrup but had never
analyzed it.
The prosecution rested and Attorney
Campbell renewed his motion for dis
missal, which was denied.
The defendant testified that he did not
sell the bottle in evidence, bat he sold the
article in his store. He d id not manufac-
ture it, but purchased it from the manu-
facturers.
Campbell offered as evidence bill from
the manufacturers of the article, with the
object of showing that defendant had no
knowledge OF the ingredients, but sold the
article in good faith.
Dunno objected and said the turning
point ia the case had now been reached.
knowledge on the part of the defendant
or lack OF knowledge was of no account.
The defendant was bound at his peril to
know the nature of the articles he sold.
He quoted numerous authorities in sup
port of his contention, and instanced de-
cisions on the same point in other crimes
and offenses.
Campbell contended that according to
the Penal Code every crime must be
union and joint operation of act and in
tent. and he de fed the Assistant District
Attorney to find any decision in the Cali
fornia courts to sustain his argument.
The defendant had not and could not COM
~ N-iy ho 10 iy,to 6a6 tNV oob
any one, it was the manufacturers and
not the retailers.
The Judge said, in view of the decisions
enumerated by Assistant District Attorney
Dunno, he would sustain the objection.
After the argument of counsel, the
Judge instructed the jury in the law bear
ing on the case and as to their duties.
The jurv retired al 9:40 P. N. and at 80
returned for instructions. They asked if
the bill from the manufacturers to the
defendant was in evidence, and the Judge
said 1t had been ruled out. 1t was stated
that eleven were for conv!cuon. They
again retired, and in ten inmates returned
intimating they had failed to agree upon
verdict.
Zone man is candy man." said Juror
Mccormick to the Judge, ,''and he won't
agree upon any consideration"
II am sure the juror will not allow his
personal interests to interfere with his
duty" said the Judge. $50 you had better
retire again.
Eleven of the jurors demurred, but the
Judge insisted and limited he might be
forced to lock them up for the night.
The jury returned at 11:15 o'clock and
the foreman, w. II. Coffee announced
they had agreed upon verdict OF guilty
with recommendation to the leniency of
the court. The jury thanked the Judge
for holding night session.
The Judge will sentence the defendant
this morning.
The jury on the first ballot stood to 6,
second ballot to 4, third ballot 10 to q
fourth ballot II to 1, final ballot unani-
nous.
,------------------