Opinion ID: 1476714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: The Appellants' Admitted Lack of Testing Equipment

Text: Capps said on the stand that he tested the contents of one of the vials in evidence for thiamine hydrochloride, and that he used a Thiachrome procedure. This test was made on September 24, 1945. Immediately following Capps as a witness was the appellant Bavouset. The latter was cross-examined at some length regarding a hearing of the Administration conducted by a Mr. Rowe on November 7, 1945. The record shows the following: Q. And did you not likewise state to Mr. Rowe at the hearing on or about November 7, 1945, with regard to the Pluri-B and the thiamine deficiency, that you did not have the equipment to make the thiachrome determination for thiamine and that you would have to, therefore, revise your manufacture and procedure? A. We did not have the equipment. Now, about the revision of manufacturing procedure, that goes on almost every day. The appellee refers to this lack as constituting poor manufacturing controls. In resisting this charge, the appellants, in their reply brief, run into another admission: When the Government uses the term `poor manufacturing controls' it undoubtedly refers to the fact that appellants did not always test their products at the conclusion of the manufacture. [Emphasis supplied] All this, we think, further supports the trial court's judgment that the appellants' products in question were so deficient or contaminated as to result in a violation of the Act.