Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. CRUEZ

June 20, 1956

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WILLIAM H. CRUEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL TRADING AS EAST SIDE HERB COMPANY, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Wham, District Judge.

This is a criminal proceeding brought under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq.

This proceeding arises on an indictment which charges the defendant, William H. Cruez, in ten counts with violations of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(a) and in the eleventh count with a violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(f).

This cause was submitted to the Court for trial on June 11, 1956, without a jury, after the defendant had waived his right to trial by jury, by written consent in open court.

Therefore, the Court having considered all the evidence educed, the arguments of counsel, and the law applicable thereto, does make the following findings of fact:

Findings of Fact

1. The defendant, William H. Cruez, is an individual trading as East Side Herb Company, with offices and place of business in the City of East St. Louis, Illinois, and the defendant is the person actively engaged in the operation of said business.

2. The indictment charges in Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, that the defendant, at East St. Louis, Illinois, in this district, caused to be introduced and delivered for introduction in interstate commerce for delivery to various places in the State of Missouri, certain drugs which drugs were alleged to be misbranded within the meaning of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 352(f)(1), in that the label of the drug and the various sales alleged in said counts, failed to bear adequate directions for use in the treatment of the conditions which the defendant orally prescribed said drugs. Count eleven of the indictment charges defendant with a violation of Title 21 U.S.C.A. § 331(f), in that he unlawfully refused entry to and inspection of his business establishment by inspectors of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Administration.

3. As to Count One, the Court finds; that on February 23, 1955, the defendant sold to Kenneth E. Kimlel, an Inspector of the United States Food and Drug Administration, a drug described as "Herb Tonic Formula No. 3", which defendant orally represented to Inspector Kimlel, was a remedy for treatment of arthritis;

The Court Further Finds that said sale was made by defendant after defendant had knowledge that Inspector Kimlel resided in Affton, in the State of Missouri, and would return to Missouri with said drug;

The Court Further Finds that the label which was on the bottle containing said drug at the time of sale to Inspector Kimlel did not state that the drug was a remedy for treatment of arthritis or any other disease or affliction;

The Court Further Finds that said drug was transported by Inspector Kimlel from East St. Louis, Illinois, to the State of Missouri;

The Court Further Finds that on June 17, 1943, the said defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, Docket No. 15928, of violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which conviction had become final before the violation charged in this count was committed.

4. As to Count Two, the Court finds; that on February 23, 1955, the defendant sold to Kenneth E. Kimlel, a drug described as "Cold Salve", which defendant orally represented to Inspector Kimlel, was a remedy for treatment of arthritis;

The Court Further Finds that said sale was made by defendant after defendant had knowledge that Inspector Kimlel resided in Affton, in the State of Missouri, and would return to Missouri with said drug;

The Court Further Finds that the label which was on the jar containing said drug at the time of sale to Inspector Kimlel, did not state that the drug was a remedy for the treatment of arthritis;

The Court Further Finds that said drug was transported by Inspector Kimlel from East St. Louis, Illinois, to the State of Missouri;

The Court Further Finds that on June 17, 1943, the said defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, Docket No. 15928, of violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which conviction had become final before the violation charged in this count was committed.

5. As to Count Three, the Court finds; that on March 3, 1955, the defendant sold to Kenneth E. Kimlel, a drug described as "Herb Tonic Formula No. 3", which defendant orally represented to Inspector Kimlel, was a remedy for treatment of arthritis;

The Court Further Finds that said sale was made by defendant after defendant had knowledge that Inspector Kimlel resided in Affton, in the State of Missouri, and would return to Missouri with said drug;

The Court Further Finds that the label which was on the bottle containing said drug at the time of sale to Inspector Kimlel, did not state that the drug was a remedy for treatment of arthritis;

The Court Further Finds that said drug was transported by Inspector Kimlel from East St. Louis, Illinois to the State of Missouri;

The Court Further Finds that on June 17, 1943, the said defendant was convicted in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, Docket No. 15928, of violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which conviction had become final before the violation charged in this count was committed.

6. As to Count Four, the Court finds; that on March 10, 1955, the defendant sold to Inspector Kenneth E. Kimlel, a drug described as "Herb Tonic Formula No. 3", which defendant orally represented to Inspector Kimlel as a remedy for treatment of arthritis;

The Court Further Finds that said sale was made by defendant after defendant had knowledge that Inspector Kimlel resided in Affton, in the State of Missouri, and would return to Missouri with said drug;

The Court Further Finds that the label which was on the bottle containing said drug at the time of sale to Inspector Kimlel, did not state that the drug ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.